back to article PayPal freezes 400-job expansion in North Carolina over bonkers religious freedom law

PayPal has abandoned plans for a new global operations center in Charlotte, North Carolina, after the US state passed a "religious freedom" act that allows discrimination against employees on the grounds of gender identity and sexuality. "The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are …

  1. J. R. Hartley Silver badge

    America

    Is fucking crazy.

    1. kain preacher Silver badge

      Re: America

      The south is.

      (Reuters) - Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant on Tuesday signed into law a measure affording wide protections for actions considered discriminatory by gay rights activists.

      The far-reaching law allows people with religious objections to deny wedding services to same-sex couples. It also clears the way for employers to cite religion in determining workplace policies on dress code, grooming and bathroom and locker access.

      Bryant, a Republican, said in a statement that he signed the law “to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government.”

      1. Trixr

        Re: America

        Isn't it funny that certain Americans are all about their Second Amendment "rights" based on a shonky interpretation of what a "militia" means, but those same Americans somehow forget the Jeffersonian principle of the separation of church and state, embodied in the First Amendment.

        1. MondoMan
          Headmaster

          Re: America

          @ Trixr

          You might want to read up on the actual texts and historical contexts of those amendments.

          For example, reasonable people can disagree on the individual right to possess firearms -- it's not a "shonky" interpretation. Similarly, the principle is preventing *establishment* of a state church, not "separation" of church and state, which is much more extreme.

          1. SolidSquid

            Re: America

            From what I've read, the militia line could be anything from "anyone because they could form a militia if possible" to "actually means the state police force because militias took that role when the country was formed", so it may well be a shonky interpretation of the word militia, but it's irrelevant because the supreme court has already ruled on it and that pretty much sets the standard in stone short of a constitutional amendment.

            Similarly they've ruled that the "establishment" of a state church and the state directly linking with any particular church (ie not being kept separate) are equivalent in practice, and the only way around this is to require the state to allow the same links from any religious group which requests it. This has recently been brought up in relation to courts sending people to 12 step programs, which while they claim to be secular still require "submitting to a higher power", which isn't compatible with all religions or religious positions

        2. Frank Oz

          Re: America

          America tends to be very selective about its observanc eof its Constitution and its Amendments. To my my mind the Amercian Constitution is more a 'statement of good intent' rather than a law that's meant to be followed.

          It's been more distinguished by its breaches rather than its effect over the years ... especially in times of stress (like during wars, economic downturns and the like - when it is supposed to be there to protect everyone).

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: America

          There's no "separation of church and state", instead there's a "no established religion" clause. Similar, but not the same.

      2. Geoffrey W Silver badge

        Re: America

        RE: "The South is (crazy)

        Nope, all of it, except for the western edges and the north eastern edges are "Fucking Crazy', and even those bits are a bit flaky too. Its all those guns: They make us so goddamn free we all get light headed and giddy and do stupid shit just because we can. And even though I'm actually British I now consider myself a honorary 'Murkin having lived here 15 years and am gettin' a bit kooky too. I talk to the bears behind the house and they say to me - "You fucking crazy american, leave me alone..." The whole country is mental but you would have to drag me kicking and screaming back to the mother land what brung me up. I fit right in. Sort of...

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. BillG Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: America

          The bill requires transgendered people to use the bathroom of their original gender unless they have changed it on their birth certificate...

          There's a reason for this. In California, you have straight guys dressing as women so they can walk into the women's rest room and get a quick thrill (hope I haven't given anyone reading this any ideas...).

          ...banned local LGBT equality ordinances

          I've read the bill PDF and I can't find this anywhere.

          I do know that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for a "protected class". While discrimination in any form is unconstitutional and hence illegal, you can't pass a law that says discriminating against people of XYZ is more illegal.

          This was emphasized in California in LA around 1986. LA passed a law making it illegal to discriminate against gays. Soon after that, LGBTs, African-Americans, women, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, and more all demanded their own law. It got outrageous when at a rally each minority group accused other minority groups of discrimination against their minority group.

          1. x 7 Silver badge

            Re: America

            " In California, you have straight guys dressing as women so they can walk into the women's rest room and get a quick thrill"

            thats a group of people who should be judicially castrated. Make them live up (or down?) to their pretended claims

          2. DiViDeD Silver badge

            @ BillG Re: Straight men going into womens' rest room.

            Sorry, I find that very odd indeed. I mean, what sort of thrill does a straight man get from getting to see women wash their hands or fix their makeup?

            Or are all female 'rest rooms' in the US supplied with a single shared shitting pit in the middle of the floor that everyone shares?

            maybe you guys should try individual cubicles. Seems to work quite well in the rest of the world.

            Seriously, how many cases of straight men dressing as women and going into female toilets does California prosecute in a year? To the nearest 100 would be fine, don't need total accuracy.

      3. Fatman Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: America

        <snip>

        The south Bible Belt1 is.

        (Reuters) - Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant on Tuesday signed into law a measure affording wide protections for actions considered discriminatory by gay rights activists.

        </snip>

        FTFY!!!

        1 So nicknamed because in days past, preachers would attempt to impose their version of morality on people professing a different faith.

    2. WilliamBurke

      Re: America

      And Russia. And pretty much all of eastern Europe, the Middle East, all of Africa and most of Asia. TBH it's less than 50 years in Blighty (and most other European countries) that orientations other than the default are legal. Outright outlawing of discrimination came much later.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: America

      You're fucking crazy

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: America

        We are. And your point is?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: America

        Hey! 'No need insulting my wife!

    4. MondoMan
      Thumb Up

      Re: America

      But it just might be a lunatic you're looking for...

    5. Gray
      Big Brother

      Re: America

      "America

      Is fucking crazy."

      No. America is divided. Half of us is totally pissed off at the other half!

      1. Big John Silver badge

        Re: America

        This is about 1% of the population attempting to force society to allow male perverts to legally go into female bathrooms whenever they like. I dare anyone to explain how this is not so. I also dare anyone to say they would have no problem with a male pervert entering a bathroom that contains YOUR young daughter.

        And in case anyone tries the old wheeze about these perverts being simple ordinary citizens, let's not forget that they are men (and women) who merely claim they are the opposite sex, in total disregard for their actual equipment.

        Some may be willing to go along with the absurd assertion that black is white and up is down, but not this boy.

        BTW, "transgenders" represent less than .001% of the population, whereas young girls in bathrooms are about 10%. Sounds like a target-rich environment for those very rare perverts who now find themselves the darlings of the Left.

        Sickening.

        1. Bloodbeastterror

          "male perverts"

          Big John,

          I'm guessing that you're an American and that your nickname doesn't refer to your IQ.

          You appear to equate "transgender" with "pervert", which for even a closed-minded non-thinker is a bit of a leap.

          In fact, your entire diatribe is so utterly nonsensical that I suspect that you don't actually believe it and that you're just a troll seeking a bit of attention.

          I'm right, yes?

          1. Big John Silver badge

            Re: "male perverts"

            Hey, I'll debate you any time.

            So, when you see Bruce Jenner (a fully male individual) wearing typically female attire and saying he is a she, what goes thru your head? I bet it's "Gee, I know that's a man, but I have to go along with the crowd and pretend he's really a woman, or else I'll be called nasty names by all my friends!"

            Have I got it right?

            Oh, and about that "attention" thing. I know I will be buried under a pile of downvotes for speaking my mind. I would prefer to get upvotes, but not at the cost of abandoning my principles and basic powers of reasoning, as you apparently have.

            1. Bloodbeastterror

              Re: "male perverts"

              "Have I got it right?"

              No, my friend, you haven't. You really need to go and talk to someone about your problem(s) and stop exposing yourself in public forums.

              (As a bigot, I mean, of course - just wanted to make that clear, since this is all about bathrooms...)

              1. Big John Silver badge

                Re: "male perverts"

                > "No, my friend, you haven't."

                Oh cool. Please explain to me how I got it wrong, friend. Unless you would rather just trash me again, intellectual giant that you are.

                1. caffeine addict Silver badge

                  Re: "male perverts"

                  Imagine that we separated toilets out under a different arbitrary distinction lets say... "intolerant feckers" and "decent human beings". When you were born, a doctor glanced at your external appearance and decided that you were an intolerant fecker. You'd be happy using those toilets for the rest of your life, would you?

                  /bad example

                  //worse mood

                2. DavCrav Silver badge

                  Re: "male perverts"

                  "Oh cool. Please explain to me how I got it wrong, friend. Unless you would rather just trash me again, intellectual giant that you are."

                  It used to be that only straight white men were real people, because men are physically stronger than women, there are more straight men than gay men, and more white people than non-whites in the countries with all the power. Then various countries decided at various times (the US among the last) to allow straight black men to be real people. Then around 1900 or so, straight women were allowed to be real people, and from about 1950ish, gay people were allowed to exist in many countries, and finally be real people, at least in Europe.

                  Can you see the general trend here? We started with the dominant group of people having all the power, and then slowly ceding it to various marginalized groupings. We only have minor (in terms of population size) groupings left to allow to be real people, and these are homosexuals, trans people (gender and vestite) and the type that must really trouble you with such fixed morality, intersex conditions.

                  What happens if someone is born looking like a woman but with a Y chromosome? Which bathroom should that person use then?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: "male perverts"

                    err. The men's?

                  2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

                    Re: "male perverts"

                    Not sure what all the fuss is about regarding bathrooms. What's so terrible about a man using a woman's public toilet? It's not as if they are going to see any parts of anatomy they don't see in public (unless they look into an occupied stall, which would be just as wrong for a woman to do as a man). IMO it's long past the time that unisex public toilets should be the norm, though he trend seems to be changing from "Men" and "Women" toilet segregation to "Adult" and "Child" segregation.

                3. David Webb

                  @Big John

                  The entire argument for this legislation was blown away by one tweet...

                  Pink News

                  If you don't want to read a gay news article I'll put it into easy words. The legislation states "sex on birth certificate" so a female transgender who has had the operation to give them a penis and are sporting a nice beard are now legally obliged to share the same toilet as your wife/daughter.

                  So next time you're in that state and you see Grizzly Adams walking into the girls toilet..........

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: @Big John

                    David Webb, I don't agree with this Law at all, but I call bullshit on your post.

                    It does not enforce based on the original sex on your birth certificate. The article clearly says: "The bill requires transgendered people to use the bathroom of their original gender UNLESS THEY HAVE CHANGED IT ON THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE".

                    In other words, if you transition genders and then update your birth certificate to match, then that's cool. But simply saying that you are a different gender is not enough. Presumably the US has the means to legally change gender on one's birth certificate, otherwise the exception stated in the bill is obviously worthless.

                    I repeat, I still do NOT support this Law, but your characterisation of that specific part is just plain wrong.

                    1. kain preacher Silver badge

                      Re: @Big John

                      In three states you can not change you birth certificate.

                  2. EddieLomax

                    Re: @Big John

                    " The legislation states "sex on birth certificate" so a female transgender who has had the operation to give them a penis"

                    How does someone get an operation to give them a penis? How does anyone have an operation to convert a penis into a vagina?

                    The truth is that they don't, all they get is the surgeon chopping up a working set of genitals to make it cosmetically look like another set, their sex is still the same as it has ever been and until we gain the technology to somehow change DNA, the same as it always will be. Biologically they are now just males or females with crippled genitals.

                    The irony is that no amount of operations will allow someone to perform another biological role, and the social role does not need medical intervention, there is nothing stopping men for being more feminine or vice versa, society is pretty tolerant. The tragedy is on the people so desperate to cosmetically look like a member of the opposite sex that they end up bending their life to fit, not with good long term consequences.

                    1. x 7 Silver badge

                      Re: @Big John

                      @EddieLomax

                      "they end up bending"

                      that might well be regarded as bad taste when talking about our sexually ambiguous fiends

                4. Penny 14

                  Re: "male perverts"

                  As a transwoman I hate to use the mens room I don't feel safe. Up here in Canada people are free to use the washroom of their preferred gender and we don't have a problem with perverts using the wrong one.

                  I think like a woman and feel like a woman however my body produced the incorrect hormones while I was in the womb and I was born with male genitalia and have a deep voice and facial hair.

                  I'm a female inside and male outside.

                  1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
                    Stop

                    Re: "male perverts"

                    … my body produced the incorrect hormones while I was in the womb

                    It didn't you know: biology is notoriously unvalued.

                  2. The First Dave

                    Re: "male perverts"

                    _Real_ Doctors and scientists have yet to determine exactly what it is that 'makes someone gay' (or whatever) though my money is on it being a mental abnormality. Your assertion that it has something to do with hormones has zero basis in fact.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      _Real_ Doctors and scientists have yet to determine what makes someone gay

                      Simple: decent dress sense and a love of Barbara Streisand and cushions.

                      1. jukejoint

                        Re: _Real_ Doctors and scientists have yet to determine what makes someone gay

                        and earrings...and caftans...

                        OK never mind. Time to proceed with my day and move gaily forward.

                    2. Bloodbeastterror

                      Re: "male perverts"

                      "my money is on it being a mental abnormality"

                      Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....

                      You speak from experience, presumably.

                    3. sisk Silver badge

                      Re: "male perverts"

                      _Real_ Doctors and scientists have yet to determine exactly what it is that 'makes someone gay'

                      Studies have found genes which influence sexuality. So unless your definition of "real" doctors is limited to those who reject rigorous, peer reviewed studies simply because they don't like what it says your statement is completely wrong.

                      1. HausWolf

                        Re: "male perverts"

                        His _Real_ Doctors hang around with the _Real_ Scientists who know that Climate Change is made up by Al Gore and people who want government grants.

                      2. The First Dave

                        Re: "male perverts"

                        'Influence' is not the same thing as 'Determine', is it?

                    4. MJI Silver badge

                      Re: "male perverts"

                      Regarding gay people

                      I have seen the programme, and.

                      There area lots of reasons.

                      Often hormone in womb caused

                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00cr1ht

                      This was a very good programme and provided John with his answer.

                  3. Ken 16 Silver badge
                    Thumb Up

                    Re: "male perverts"

                    So long as you're a Canadian, you're OK inside and out.

                  4. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: "male perverts"

                    Troll, and get therapy.

                5. kain preacher Silver badge

                  Re: "male perverts"

                  When I go to the bath room I do not have that issue. California (unRuth Civil Rights Act) Has had a law since 1996 allowing Trans folks to use the appropriate bath room. Funny yho9w every seem to forget ab out trans men. If you think a women is uncomfortable with a trans women try a trans man. IE a man that is genetically female but looks and acts like a man. Oh and you think that male perverts were just wanting for a law that allows for trans people to use the right bath room.

                  Niya. Proud trans woman and activist.

                6. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: "male perverts"

                  So, OK, "big" john (boy, is that compensation, or not?) I'm nearly six feet tall, dress in jeans, turtlenecks and flannel shirts. I walk into the women's bathroom. Ya gonna stop me and make me show ID to pee? Good f'in luck, 'cause I'm GOING TO IGNORE YOU. And, if you are dumb enough to follow me in and accost me, I will use all my martial arts training and strength to break you enough, in the defense of my body, to prevent you from ever trying that again to anyone. In the interest of rape prevention, of course. AC only because a troll as persistently perverted as you will attempt to dox.

                  1. Kurt Meyer

                    @AC Re: "male perverts"

                    A "badass" too chickenshit to post using their regular handle.

                    Funniest post of the thread, thank you for that.

            2. x 7 Silver badge

              Re: "male perverts"

              "So, when you see Bruce Jenner (a fully male individual) wearing typically female attire and saying he is a she, what goes thru your head?"

              more appositely, I wonder what his daughters think when he shares the ladies loo with him. Hi Dad come and shag me? Given that they drop their knickers at the whiff of a lens cap, I wouldn't have thought he would have needed to be so extreme

              1. Bloodbeastterror

                Re: "male perverts"

                "Hi Dad come and shag me"

                Another American from the deep south, I guess. You & Big John should get a room.

            3. nsld
              Facepalm

              Re: "male perverts" @big john

              So you are standing at the urinal holding little John when Bruce/Caitlyn wanders in, stands next to you, lobs out his todger and then glances admiringly at you whilst tugging seductively at his/her top to give you an eyeful of those massive plastic hooters !

              I guess you miss the point that as a trangender person he might well be into guys?

              Who knows, he/she might like it, maybe you will to?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @nsld: Re: "male perverts" @big john

                So your wife is standing at washbasins holding little John's hand (he's only two after all) when Bruce/Caitlyn wanders in, forgets what room he/she's in (force of habit), stands next to her, lobs out his todger and and pisses in the sink whilst tugging seductively at his/her top to give your wife an eyeful of those massive plastic hooters !

                I guess you miss the point that as a trangender person he might well be into women?

                Who knows, he/she might like it, maybe your wife will too?

                There you go: more stupidity, right back at you.

                1. nsld

                  Re: @nsld: "male perverts" @big john

                  Swmbo wouldn't have an issue with it.

                  Probably because she isn't a retarded, inbred fuck nugget like you.

                  Hth

            4. Oh Homer Silver badge
              Mushroom

              It's all about the "equipment", stoopid

              Christian fanatics have a very a very simple-minded view of what it actually means to be transgender. Psychology is also a significant factor in the condition, even in the total absence of any physical characteristics, and not something that can be casually dismissed as some arbitrary "choice", any more than clinical depression.

              If the Christian Right are so concerned about "perverts", then why would they have no objection to same-gender bathrooms and changing rooms, in full knowledge of the fact that they may be used by homosexuals? Conversely, in what way, exactly, would a man who identifies as a woman threaten the dignity or security of other women, or a woman who identifies as a man threaten the dignity or security of other men?

              Clearly what our Christian Taliban friends need is a full isolationist lockdown on all human interaction, not just those occasions where our wobbly bits might be exposed to people who have no interest in them whatsoever. This will entail building more high security prisons, comprised entirely of solitary confinement units, to rehouse the 320 million or so potential "perverts" in America, thus safeguarding our precious wobbly bits once and for all.

              Sadly (or perhaps happily, depending on your point of view) this will also spell the end of America, as its population will rapidly plummet to zero - ironically one of the alleged outcomes that supposedly motivates the Christian Jihadists to engage in their Crusade against "perverts" in the first place.

              Alternatively we could just use the now derelict Detroit, as a sort of modern-day leper colony for those afflicted by the disease of Christian extremist bigotry. That will not only spare the rest of us from their oppressive religious "laws", but will also give them a habitat where they can inbreed and sexually abuse their own children with complete impunity, in the time honoured tradition of all "good Christians".

              1. jukejoint

                Re: It's all about the "equipment", stoopid

                Oh Homer, no you can't...not my hometown. Even Detroit doesn't deserve that, to be overrun by Christian extremists. They need to be Tali-banned.

                As a point of information, Detroit IS already populated even though its population has declined. So there's that. Its citizens would be none too happy about such a development. They've got enough on their plate as it is.

            5. Cthonus
              Megaphone

              Re: "male perverts"

              "I know I will be buried under a pile of downvotes for speaking my mind. I would prefer to get upvotes, but not at the cost of abandoning my principles and basic powers of reasoning"

              There's an old Jewish proverb: "If ten men tell you you're sick, lie down."

            6. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "male perverts"

              You sure don't get the difference between transvestism and transgender do you @BigJohn? A "fully male individual" in women's clothes is a transvestite. To become transgender you need to have gender reassignment surgery.

              Please do go and do a little basic research before making yourself look foolish.

              1. sisk Silver badge

                Re: "male perverts"

                A "fully male individual" in women's clothes is a transvestite. To become transgender you need to have gender reassignment surgery.

                You're half right. A fully male individual in women's clothes is a transvestite. A transgender person suffers from gender dysmorphia. Usually they live as women for a couple years before going under the knife, but no one familiar with gender dysmorphia would classify a M2F trans as "fully male" even before their surgery.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "male perverts"

            Well bloodbeastterror, I think THAT refers to your IQ, less than room temp I suspect. Transgender is simply todays "victim du jour", and perverts are far more numerous.

            So you support forcing religious practitioners (by threats of violence of course) to perform "marriage" ceremonies that they don't agree with - would you apply that to your local Imam as well as Christians ? And you support any Male's "right" to enter a womens changing room at any time as long as they claim to "identify as female" ?

            Are you fucking crazy ?

        2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: America

          BTW, "transgenders" represent less than .001% of the population, whereas young girls in bathrooms are about 10%. Sounds like a target-rich environment for those very rare perverts who now find themselves the darlings of the Left.

          FWIW I don't agree with Big John on pretty much any issue, and I don't think cross-dressers or transgender are perverts, but it's worth highlighting how and why some of the Left's more strident campaigns lead to legislation like this and alienation of part of the population – these laws are often popular in the states where they are passed.

          The situation won't be resolved by name-calling or finger-pointing.

        3. nematoad Silver badge
          Happy

          @Big John

          "I know you.

          You're Donald Trump and I claim my £5."

          For the culturally disadvantaged it was a feature of some newspapers in the UK to have a mystery figure walk around a named location and if the reader challenged them whilst holding a copy of that days paper they could claim a prize.

          1. DanceMan

            Re: I claim my £5

            @nematoad

            Thanks for the explanation for us left-coasters.

        4. kmac499

          Re: America

          Well here's a couple of toilet tales that will fry Jane & Jonny Rednecks brains

          1) I worked in Paris for an American company. The bathroom policy Unisex.. Not quite as awkward as it may sound as the bathroom was individual cubicles with floor to celing doors. Still a bit of a novelty finding a member of the opposite washing their hands tho'.

          But plenty of public places had unisex brathrooms with much lower levels of privacy..

          2) Whilst in a Tex\Mex restaurant bar in London The ladies often used the cubicles in the mens room as their facilities were under supplied.

          3) Glastonbury many years ago; I'm still in therapy.

          1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

            Re: America

            > individual cubicles with floor to celing doors

            This is the key issue - US toilets are woefully undersupplied in the cubicle door department - gaps at the sides as well as top & bottom are the order of the day. I think they fear being seen by a MOTAS in that position, when all that's needed is fully private cubicles.

          2. Kane Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: America

            3) Glastonbury many years ago; I'm still in therapy.

            Understandable really, the olfactory senses tend to shutdown after about 48 hours of exposure to the, uh, ahem, "shit-pits".

          3. earl grey Silver badge
            Mushroom

            Re: America

            "finding a member of the opposite washing their hands"

            Seems to be a bit of a novelty around here...soap, water, and all that. I don't know how these people were brought up, but i sure wish they would get a clue.

          4. Colin Millar

            Re: America

            kmac499

            4) the gents at the old Wembley stadium at half time on cup final day - complete free-for all

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: America

          "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" > @BigJohn

        6. KA1AXY

          Re: America

          @BigJohn

          For my entire time at university, 18 - 22 year old men and women shared the same bathroom and shower. There were some initial issues, but they were dealt with in a way that prevented further problems.

          Now, in this case, we are talking about adults. I predict even fewer issues.

          I think your fears are unjustified and I base this upon personal experience.

          1. jhise

            Re: America

            I second that. That's what Big J would do if he were to dress up like a girl and go in the womens room. This is the limit of his (and other's) perception. I assume he clearly doesn't know anyone who is openly trans. To be fair, if he actually met someone who he is claiming to be a pervert and discovered they weren't, he might be a decent guy. Then again, we don't have that vantage point.

        7. TrishaD

          Re: America

          This is a classic case of the Religious Right attempting (and succeeding) in invoking moral panic. They've failed in their attempts to control womens' reproductive rights (because, surprise surprise, about half of all voters are women) and failed to prevent equal marriage rights (because, as in most of the Western world, most young Americans dont give a stuff about whether someone's gay or not). They're now focussing on transgender people because we're an easy target.

          There's no protection here against perverts any more than the existing protections in law that are in place already, and no amount of ranting by bigots like Big John is going to change that.

          In the UK, the Gender Recognition Act has been in place since 2004, granting transsexual people full recognition of their acquired gender (including the right to go to the lav). Number of transsexual people convicted of sexual assault in womens's toilets? None. As in zero.

          But this legislation isnt just about transgender people in spite of the Republican Party's attempts to scare the shit out of people. It's about giving individuals and organisations the right to deny services (including medical and health services) to homosexual men and women because their gibbering Mullahs have told them they're sinful. Land of the Free, my arse ....

        8. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: America

          attempting to force society to allow male perverts....

          There's your problem. That. Right there.

          Gender dysmorphia is not a perversion. It's a crippling condition to have to live with. The biological mechanisms which cause it are well understood and known to happen mostly in the womb. Until you have to live life in a body that you can't stand to be in you simply cannot understand it. For many of its sufferers there is only one way to make it possible to face life. Given the suicide rate associated with the condition - a direct result of people like you refusing to let them be themselves - this law is absolutely unconscionable.

          That plus the fact that repeated studies have shown that there is no risk to allowing transgendered people to use the bathroom they feel they should be using makes your entire argument completely irrelevant. Sorry John, but facts are facts and ignorant bigotry is ignorant bigotry.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: America

            Typical bullshit. The "gender dysmorphia" is little more than the victim of the day choice for now. It isn't very real for any but a tiny minority but far too many people have been convinced by those who don't have their best interests at heart that it is.

            Repeated studies have in fact shown that it is a genuine risk to allow those CLAIMING to be transgendered to use changing rooms in particular.

            The suicide risk increases after re-assignment surgery, which IMHO demonstrates the false nature of the treatment - it is a mental condition not a physical one; no dissimilar to anorexia and bulimia. The current indulgence in this foolishness is actually harming those most at risk and all for a political point. How low can you go ?

            1. DiViDeD Silver badge

              @AC Re: America

              "Repeated studies have in fact shown that it is a genuine risk to allow those CLAIMING to be transgendered to use changing rooms in particular"

              That's great news. I've been searching and not able to come up with either a verifiable case or a transgendered person transmogrifying into a terrifying PERVERT MONSTER in a public toilet (yes, we're allowed to call them toilets - I mean, who goes in there for a 'rest'?), or a piece of reputable. peer reviewed research into the subject, and now you come along and tell me there are repeated studies.

              Could you provide some links to these studies, as they sound like just the thing we need to bolster the spirit of our local queer bashing club, whose morale has been somewhat flaccid of late.

            2. TrishaD

              Re: America

              "The suicide risk increases after re-assignment surgery, which IMHO demonstrates the false nature of the treatment - it is a mental condition not a physical one; no dissimilar to anorexia and bulimia. The current indulgence in this foolishness is actually harming those most at risk and all for a political point. How low can you go"

              You do realise that this is, to put it bluntly, total horseshit?

              Suicide risks do not increase after reassignment surgery. The Religious Right and their stooges have recently siezed on the results of a Swedish study and (surprise surprise) misrepresented them. The claim is that suicide risk increases and that levels of criminality remain unchanged. In fact the study took two groups of transsexuals, one group who transitioned in the 1980s when social attitudes and social care for transsexuals less advanced and another group from several years later when Sweden had moved on signifcantly both in terms of social care and social attitudes.

              The first group suffered high suicide rates and an unchanged level of criminality. The second group demonstated a significant lowering of both.

              Thus demonstrating that if you support transgender individuals sympathetically and treat them as normal human beings rather than as freaks and pariahs, most of their problems go away.

              This of course doesnt fit the bigot agenda so they lie about it.

        9. Ken 16 Silver badge
          Facepalm

          France

          Public toilets allow anyone in. You can use a urinal or a cubicle. The only difference is the plumbing. Why does it have to be more complicated?

          1. Kurt Meyer

            Re: France

            "Public toilets allow anyone in. You can use a urinal or a cubicle. The only difference is the plumbing. Why does it have to be more complicated?"

            This, this, this. A thousand times this.

        10. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

          Re: America

          Totally cool with it. So are my daughters. Because we understand the difference between those labels you're throwing around so blithely.

        11. Robert Moore

          Re: America

          Having known several Transgender people. I can say without any doubt that they were all women. Regardless of their external genitalia.

          Let's not overlook you feeble attempt to bury a "Won't someone think of the children", argument at the end of your bigoted rant. I will just point out that the VAST majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual males.

          Lastly, "Big" John sickens me.

        12. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: America

          I suspect @Big John actually wants the transgendered in the men's room so he can get his gnarly hands on their purdie lil boobies and show y'all his tiny lil pecker.

          Those who shout loudest generally have a dirty little secret to hide.

          1. earl grey Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: America

            "dirty little secret to hide"

            Once again, all down to a little soap and water.

        13. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: America

          > This is about 1% of the population attempting to force society to allow male perverts to legally go into female bathrooms whenever they like.

          Wow, John. Congratulations, I had never seen anyone go three figures on the downvotes before.

          Maybe I should get out more, but by and large these days I tend to see non-segregated toilets. All it takes after all is placing a container for sanitary pads in every toilet, and that's that problem solved.

          Incidentally, you seem to be a bit lacking in awareness of transgender and gender identification issues. The physical gender does not always correspond with the psychological gender, it's just the way it is for some (quite a few) people and it's neither here nor there.

          But anyway, what are you afraid of, "Big" John? Stop being a whingeing coward, man up a bit, and accept that we're all different yet we're all the same. Besides, one of those "sick perverts" could be YOUR son, you silly twat.

        14. israel_hands

          Re: America

          whereas young girls in bathrooms are about 10%

          I really, really don't want to know where you got that specific piece of information from.

          Although it does beg the question what percentage of the population is young girls not in bathrooms. And is it always the same 10% like they live there, or is there some sort of rota system?

          Oh, and in case it's not already clear: I think you're a fucking tool.

    6. KA1AXY

      Re: America

      Parts of it are. The rest of us are doing our best to cope.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: America

      I wonder if the aim of the law was (say) to allow a purveyor of children's bouncy castles to be allowed, in law, without fear of discrimination or legal comeback, to decide without explanation to not hire their wares to paedophiles and predators. Or let's say I run a hotel that's situated in a very old timber framed building with low ceilings, windy corridors and steps everywhere - should I have to gut the building so one person in a wheelchair (who might not ever stay with me) could possibly navigate their way through?

      A couple of somewhat silly, Daily Mail-esque examples, I'll grant you - but if I run a business and decide my business won't have dealings with a person or group of people for whatever reason, where should discrimination law step in, and where should the law step back and allow the collective market to call me an asshole and take their business elsewhere because (say) for aesthetic reasons I decide not to serve gingers. (I am ginger myself before the indignant frothing starts).

      It may be that I am completely misreading this law (IANAL) and it is, indeed, simply bigoted and crazy. But, knowing PayPal, they'll have an darker ulterior motive not being discussed here; and reporters on aspects of law and legal matters are looking for an angle and a pithy headline way before they are looking for accuracy and detail. And we do so like to get riled and outraged and 'triggered', don't we?

      So to any lawyers reading: what's really happening and what's really been signed into law here? And exactly what are PayPal up to, because so far, they haven't shown themselves to be a beacon of morality.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I am rather sleep deprived

      ... but is the article saying they still have segregated toilets over there?

      How quaint. :-)

  2. x 7 Silver badge

    "religious beliefs and moral convictions "

    so you can be convicted because of your morals now?

    1. kain preacher Silver badge

      If they get their way yes. Recently the state of Texas adjust the high curriculum to make Joe McCarthy seem like a not so bad guy.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      To Big Simple John the world is a very simplistic place.

      It's not the same world as the rest of us.

    3. Santa from Exeter

      @ x7

      "so you can be convicted because of your morals now?"

      You always could if your morals didn't match those that the state should be enforced.

      Let's not forget, people like Alan Turing were only 'immoral' in the narrow view of 1950's UK society, nothing he did which pertained to his sexuality actually harmed anybody.

      Likewise the early UK advocates for returning women's suffrage were only 'immoral' in the sight of the powers that be in demanding votes for women

    4. HausWolf

      You've never been to the American south... yes you can be convicted for having the "wrong" morals.

  3. ma1010 Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    North Carolina can't do math, either

    A few years ago, they jacked property taxes, but it wasn't implemented correctly. The result was that most homeowners underpaid their taxes. Once the problem was found, the homeowners were all told to cough up ALL of it NOW. For most, this was several thousand $, and they could not do it.

    Finally, after petitions and all sorts of political pushback, the state allowed people to pay their back taxes in installments, or so I've heard.

    Gotta wonder what those folks over there are up to?

    Paris because I think somebody that bright is in charge over there.

  4. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
    Pint

    "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

    No public bathroom is ever truly safe.

    One should be far more concerned about what the individual in the next stall had for dinner the previous evening, than what their perhaps unique gender du jour is.

    It's especially disturbing when one can't help but fully understand that smell is not a Field Theory. It's communicated by means of actual molecules that have made the journey from their plate to your nostrils via their digestive tract.

    Now, anyone in North Carolina still feeling 'safe'?

    1. Big John Silver badge

      Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

      "No public bathroom is ever truly safe."

      So that justifies letting male perverts legally enter female bathrooms? I try, but I just can't warp my mind enough to understand your reasoning.

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        "male perverts legally enter female bathrooms"

        My god, maybe Big John actually does believe what he's spouting...

        Either trolling for attention or actually believes it - either way a twisted tortured soul in need of some help.

        1. Credas Silver badge

          Re: "male perverts legally enter female bathrooms"

          Anyone else wondering why Big "check my hands, really, no problem in that department" John is so fixated on thoughts of male perverts sneaking into restrooms to slobber over young girls?

      2. Aniya
        WTF?

        Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

        @Big John: Male perverts will always do what male perverts do whether or not they are "allowed" into women's restrooms. The Catholic Church can tell you all about it. This law serves zero purpose other than bigotry. Let's be honest here. If a male pervert does indeed make his way into women's restrooms and engages in perverted behaviour there are more than enough laws already in place (one would hope) to tackle voyeurism, indecent exposure, molestation and so on.

        And if you've ever known anyone who is transgender you would also know that transgender individuals are amongst the least concern to society as many really do prefer to stay low, not cause trouble and above all do whatever they can do to avoid attracting unnecessary attention.

        So fuck this law. And as much as I loathe PayPal for being overly pro-buyer I applaud them for making this decision because it is simply the right thing to do.

      3. Someonehasusedthathandle

        Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

        Now I'm a little vague on ladies loo's here but don't they have these stall things that kind of restrict a "perverts" ability to see anything at all, with locks. Any attempt to get around these barriers breaks real laws and doesn't need ignorance and intolerance to protect it. I mean really what do you think goes on in there!

        In fact I'd be more concerned about female "perverts" coming into male loo's and catching a look at your *ahem* "big" john.

        *Your definition of pervert is really lacking any legs, hairy or otherwise*

      4. KA1AXY

        Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

        John, what prevents "male perverts" from entering female bathrooms today? A law? By the time the cops show up, the offender is gone?

        And...is this "male pervert" problem of great concern where you live? It's not where I live.

      5. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

        @Big John

        "I just can't warp my mind enough"

        ...

        Nah, I can't be bothered - too easy...

      6. sisk Silver badge

        Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

        So that justifies letting male perverts legally enter female bathrooms? I try, but I just can't warp my mind enough to understand your reasoning.

        Step 1: Stop thinking of transgenders as "perverts" and accept the proven science that shows that they truly do have brains that don't match their bodies.

        If your mind is too small to do that then I'm afraid you'll never understand this issue. As with anything you're incapable of understanding you should embrace the advice of Mark Twain:

        "Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

      Sorry to add to the general intolerance around here suddenly, but to the appropriately named JeffyPoooh, I now hate you!

      For the expression "smell is not a Field Theory", you are to be congratulated, upvoted, and told to please shut up. It's not the pleasantest of mental images...

    3. MJI Silver badge

      Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

      I do not want a bath in public.

      THEY ARE PUBLIC TOILETS

      1. Kurt Meyer

        Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

        @ MJI

        "I do not want a bath in public."

        Then don't take a bath in public.

        "THEY ARE PUBLIC TOILETS"

        But not in North Carolina, where this story is unfolding. There, the common terms are bathroom, or restroom. Please don't pretend that you aren't aware of this, nor of their common usage by all Americans, whether in spoken, or written form.

        I, for one, had hoped that all of us had moved beyond the petty, pissant arguments over tyre/tire, boot/trunk, color/colour, and the "proper" pronunciation of the word schedule.

        Every time I start to believe that this is true, along comes some spotty, sad-arsed little spac to remind me; "Not yet, me boy, not yet."

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

          But calling toilets a bathroom is wrong.

          I have a bathroom in my house, there is a bath

          I also have a downstairs toilet.

          They are public toilets, just call them that, you go in there to go to toilet, not take a bath, nor have a rest.

          1. x 7 Silver badge

            Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

            "you go in there to go to toilet"

            actually.....no you don't. "Toilet" is derived from the french word "toilette" and simply means "to wash". SO "toilet" is just another euphemism. "Loo" is another - it comes from l'eau, or water. Both words are as technically incorrect as "bathroom"

            The truth is, the "correct" words such as piss, shit, crap/crapper have all fallen out of use due to Victorian (and possibly earlier) fake notions of modesty concerning bodily functions.

            Chaucer had no such hangups over the use of correct words. When did the rot set in? I guess around the same time we started to hide sex from the children? How were personal dignities kept within families when all lived and slept in the same room? Or maybe there were no personal dignities - its another Victorian artificial construction and constraint

          2. Kurt Meyer

            Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

            @MJI

            "But calling toilets a bathroom is wrong."

            Says you. Other people say differently.

            "I have a bathroom in my house, there is a bath"

            Great. I enjoy a long, hot soak when I've the time. I sometimes bring a book to read while relaxing in the tub.

            "I also have a downstairs toilet."

            Always a bonus.

            "They are public toilets, just call them that..."

            You call them that.

            Go on, feel free to do so. Call them by any name you desire; biffy, loo, khazi, bathroom, john, lav, head, restroom, shitter, WC, bog, can, toilet. The choice is yours, and yours alone. You certainly don't need anyone's approval, or permission. Pick the name you like best, and use it to your heart's content.

            Then let others do the same.

            1. MJI Silver badge

              Re: "...bathrooms across North Carolina were 'safe' again."

              Yes but it needs a bath to be a bathroom!

              Or are you bathing in a urinal trench?

  5. John McCallum

    Biggottry

    These are just another form of the HATTED Jim Crow Laws of the 19th and early 20th century.

    1. MondoMan

      Re: Biggottry

      Wwould that be straw hats or top hats, sir?

      1. HausWolf

        Re: Biggottry

        Considering the topic.. I'm thinking beaver hat.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Biggottry

      Could I pop round sometime to collect the extra 'g' and two extra 't's you don't need? Thanks.

  6. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Hmm

    I we think dealing with only 28 "states" is difficult.

  7. Someone_Somewhere

    Re: Reuters

    > It also clears the way for employers to cite religion in determining workplace policies on dress code, grooming and bathroom and locker access.

    In some parts of the world that's known as 'Sharia Law' I believe.

    1. kain preacher Silver badge

      Re: Reuters

      Psst don't tell them that. that will make them act even crazier.

    2. Richard 126

      Re: Reuters

      "It also clears the way for employers to cite religion in determining workplace policies on dress code, grooming and bathroom and locker access."

      Does this mean as a devout follower of the flying spaghetti monster I can require all my workers to wear a colander on their head?

      1. MondoMan

        Re: Reuters

        I think it's more like IBM requiring everyone to wear white or light blue shirts and a suit.

        1. earl grey Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Reuters

          "I think it's more like IBM requiring everyone to wear white or light blue shirts and a suit."

          You forgot the hat. Back in the day they ALL wore hats.

    3. d3vy Silver badge

      Re: Reuters

      Oh Ffs.

      Fuck off back to the daily mail.

      1. Someone_Somewhere

        Re: Fuck off back to the daily mail.

        Your speciality is knee-jerk reaction - ironically in the vein of the Fail's own readership - rather than satire, isn't it?

        1. d3vy Silver badge

          Re: Fuck off back to the daily mail.

          "Your speciality is knee-jerk reaction - ironically in the vein of the Fail's own readership - rather than satire, isn't it?"

          I dont see it that way. The article has nothing to do with sharia law, or islam.

          My comment was directed at the person who attempted to take a conversation about a law passed to appease christians and make it about islam. there is enough islam bashing going on at the moment without adding to it. *

          * I know where this is likley to go - some one will point out that there will be islamic countries with similar laws (or worse) but that was not the point of the article and doesnt need to be discussed here,

          I think that my comment was apt given the OPs attempt at redirecting the conversation to be about sharia law, which if you read the comments on the mail happens all the time (seriously, there was an article about Victoria Beckham the other day that decended into an argument about sharia law being imposed in the UK to stop women flaunting themselves,, the article was about a bad photoshop job on some of her pictures)

  8. Palpy
    Joke

    American exceptionalism! <3

    As one born on, and still living on, the North American continent, in a bit claimed by the USA, I have to say that yes, Americans are exceptional!

    1. Exceptionally fat. By nation, fattest on Earth, I believe.

    2. Exceptionally imprisoned. Per capita, more citizens living in prison than any other nation.

    3. Exceptionally gun-happy. Almost twice as many firearms per capita as Cyprus, the runner-up (Wikipedia).

    (Speaking of armaments, you know that toddler that shot his mother dead while shopping? See, if the toddler in the next shopping cart over had been armed, he could have shot the first toddler before he killed his mother. We will never be safe until all toddlers pack heat. Why can no one see the logic there?)

    Americans are, however, not perfect. (This may surprise many.) We are in a dead heat with Russia in ability to nuke things. This could be important if Trump gets elected -- we may run out of warheads before the Earth runs out of non-radioactive cities.

    And US health care ranks at the bottom of developed nations... except for New Zealand (WHO). We Americans must remedy that. Go lower, we can do it! Get worse than Zed!

    And so forth.

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      Re: American exceptionalism! <3

      Palpy, you (partially) redeem faith in American sanity - thank you.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: American exceptionalism! <3

        Have you been there? Most everyone is sane and normal, this comes as a surprise to first time visitors.

        There are a lot of crazy people (because there are a lot of people) and the crazies are loud (because they can) but generally they do good stuff like put men on the moon, make Tesla cars, make a lot of bombs to use in 3rd world countries, and produce twinkies by the million.

        In my years of living there I saw many handguns, though I never touched one. I only heard one discharge in public once (whilst I lay in bed the gun could be heard in the distance, my neighbour said it was probably someone shooting raccoons).

        1. ICPurvis47

          Re: American exceptionalism! <3

          When I took my driving test in Louisville KY a while back, the Driving Examiner had a gun on each hip, and took up more than half of the bench seat.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: American exceptionalism! <3

      "We are in a dead heat with Russia in ability to nuke things"

      Erm, no. The missile gap never existed and the USA has consistently had an order of magnitude more nuclear weapons than the next country since the 1950s.

      It's worth noting that many of the "missles" parading through red square were noticeably wobbly, being made of substandard cardboard.

      1. Palpy

        Re: "USA consistently had (has?) more missiles..."

        I dunno. Wikipedia quotes the Federation of American Scientists (as of 2014):

        USA: 1900 active warheads, 4500 total.

        Russia: 1780 active warheads, 4700 total.

        Another source of info?

  9. Major_Variola

    Freedom

    The state can't force you to deal with folks you don't want to. Simple.

    The state has to deal with everyone, race-blind. But I don't have to.

    Simple. Individual rights. Dig?

    1. Someone_Somewhere

      Re: Freedom

      > The state has to deal with everyone, race-blind. But I don't have to.

      1) Nobody but you mentioned 'race' - you're not racist, but ... eh?

      2) Yes, you do - there are laws making sure you don't get to lynch people by the light of a burning cross irrespective of their race, creed, gender, sexuality or any one of a myriad of reasons bigots love to bleat about being an affront to their inbred dignity.

    2. kain preacher Silver badge

      Re: Freedom

      So a doctor and turn away a dying patient because gender, gender identity, race ?

      1. MondoMan

        Re: Freedom

        I think it all came about because a few years ago WA state's attorney general, in a publicity-seeking move to raise his profile for a crack at the governorship, sued an elderly flower arranger who didn't want to participate in a male-male wedding. That the government would take this type of action had been specifically denied by proponents of the earlier WA state-wide initiative to make official same-sex marriages (which passed, in a credit to WA state's voters).

        That governmental over-reach then prompted many self-promoters in other states to try and pass laws to prevent such an action in their states. Sadly, most (all?) of these new laws seem to have been poorly designed or wrongly intentioned.

    3. Velv Silver badge

      Re: Freedom

      "The state can't force you to deal with folks you don't want to."

      Well, yes, and no.

      If you offer a service to the public, then you must offer that service to all of the public equally. If you are not prepared to offer your services on an equal basis then you should not be offering your services.

      Simple. Equal individual rights. Dig?

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: Freedom

        "If you offer a service to the public, then you must offer that service to all of the public equally. If you are not prepared to offer your services on an equal basis then you should not be offering your services."

        I don't agree with that philosophy. There are some services that should be constrained this way (public services run by or on behalf of central and local government, e.g. healthcare workers and emergency services etc), but a business should have the right to to decide who they can treat with. I see no particular problem with a cake-maker, florist, or hotel saying that they do not want to supply services to a person on the basis of any thing they like - just as I as an individual have the right to not engage with any business (or individual) I don't like. It is not like there won't be other businesses quite happy to have the custom from those turned away - and it may well be that the business with restrictions finds that they will lose custom from people not of the group excluded because they don't approve of the stance taken. I don't actually see any difference between "I'm not serving you because <whatever spurious reason>" and "I'm not serving you because you don't have enough money".

        1. A K Stiles

          Re: Freedom

          As I understand it (from a right-pondian perspective, so the specifics may vary geographically) Every business is entitled to say "yes I'll serve you" or "sorry, not today" to anyone they please. It's only when they add on the "because you like smoked bacon, and we only serve people that like unsmoked bacon"* that they start to get into legal difficulties.

          *may not actually be about bacon prejudice...

        2. Velv Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: Freedom

          @Intractable Potshead

          So you don't buy into that philosophy, that's cool.

          Perhaps you think it's OK not to serve a disabled person, or an old person. Perhaps you think we should take the vote off the Blacks and the Women, because let's face it, they're not worth.

          We've had this debate. Not treating people equally is discrimination. The Suffragets fought for equality and the sane people knew it was right. Martin Luther King fought and died for equality, and the sane people knew it was right. Discrimination and prejudice are wrong, and I stand by my statement - if you're not prepared to serve the public equally don't serve the public. I'm not asking you to like them, not liking your customers is a whole different issue.

          1. Rob Daglish

            Re: Freedom

            There is a BBC Law In Action program regarding this debate, based on the case of a bakery in Northern Ireland who refused to bake a cake because the customer wanted it to promote gay marriage - the shop refused to make it, the customer claimed it was because he was gay, the shop said they didn't know that and only refused as it was against their christian beliefs to promote gay marriage, and it's all gotten a bit political. It's worth a listen, but if you're not in Blightly I don't know how you'd manage that ;)

  10. Winkypop Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Religious bigotry

    Or is that a tautology?

    Easy mistake to make.

    FFS, when will these fools grasp the concept that NOT EVERYONE subscribes to their out-dated belief system.

    Feel free to bigot away as much as you like, just let the rest of us live in a modern, civilised and inclusive world. Please!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Religious bigotry

      They won't though. A big part of the pleasure, it seems, in avoiding living in a modern civilised and inclusive world is ensuring that no one else gets to live in one either, and furthermore making bloody sure they know it. In that sense, I suppose, they are at least inclusive.

      Depressingly, a global phenomenon.

  11. Someone_Somewhere

    Obligatory 'Preacher' quote

    “Why is it the greatest champions of the white race always turn out to be the worst examples of it? You! Where the fuck is your chin?” ― Garth Ennis, Preacher, Volume 7: Salvation.

    Of course racism isn't the exclusive preserve of 'whitey' - ironically, bigotry is colour-blind, gender-neutral and sexually repressed either way around.

  12. Mark 85 Silver badge
    WTF?

    Puzzling legislation.

    I know we're all nuts here in the States, but tying in a minimum wage lock into this bill defies logic.. WTF?

    Their paranoia over their so called freedoms is one thing in that it restricts others freedoms. I expect a Supreme Court case over this. Constitutionality and all that.....

    I swear, we're all batshit crazy these days... just a glance at the front runners for President proves that point.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Puzzling legislation.

      I know we're all nuts here in the States, but tying in a minimum wage lock into this bill defies logic

      Actually, it's one of the less egregious examples of earmarks. I think there's a website that lists some of the really great ones.

  13. TJ1

    Who has the guilty conscience?

    This kind of over-reaction to what has to be an almost non-existent issue always brings to my mind the key question:

    Which of those law-makers was it that got so turned on sharing their chamber's bathrooms with a trans-gender person, that rather than maintain some self-discipline thought it better to reinforce their own insecurities (and have their cover blown - excuse the pun!) by imposing a law to keep those tempters/tresses out of the bathroom?

    If you've got the urge either just say 'hello' or shut up and whistle Dixie!

    P.S. Are those same lawmakers going to be demanding to see the apparently trans-gender person's passport to verify the gender re-assignment whilst in the bathroom?

    P.P.S. Are those law-makers going to have a rummage around first - to confirm the apparent gender?

    P.P.P.S. The mind just boggles...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @TJ1 - Re: Who has the guilty conscience?

      Please don't get me wrong here, but why do you say this is a non-existent issue ?

      1. karakalWitchOfTheWest

        Re: @TJ1 - Who has the guilty conscience?

        That's a non issue because how many rapes in bathrooms by transgender humans to humans of the opposite gender (which one????) are recored every year?

        1. Cari

          Re: @karakalWitchOfTheWest - Who has the guilty conscience?

          And how many physical attacks on trans people for "using the wrong bathroom" in public bathrooms have there been?

          Open plan, shared toilets are an awful idea all around. To ensure everyone's comfort and safety, do away with them and have individual rooms, like the single disabled bathrooms you get in places.

      2. TJ1

        Re: @TJ1 - Who has the guilty conscience?

        "Please don't get me wrong here, but why do you say this is a non-existent issue ?"

        Because it is being used to deflect the electorate's - and media's - attention from the *real* substance of the law, which is to prevent the governments of cities and townships within the state passing diversity and equality ordnances/laws that go further then the state's protections - and the state is specifically calling out several key diversity/equality 'categories' as not protected.

        *That* is the reason PayPal has reacted by 'freezing' its 400-employee support centre in the state.

        P.S. I'm a gay man and fully support universal equality by constitution or written law without regard to 'categories'.

  14. Kurt Meyer

    PayPal's values

    "the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal's mission and culture."

    Making money hand over fist?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Kurt Meyer - Re: PayPal's values

      Yeah, big American corporations caring for values and principles always warm my heart. God bless'em!

  15. Lee Mulcahy

    Who are Americans?

    Any of you remember where Americans came from? Not THAT long ago.

    1. TJ1

      Re: Who are Americans?

      > Any of you remember where Americans came from? Not THAT long ago.

      Ah yes: Mexico, China, India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Vietnam, South Korea, Columbia, Haiti (and that's just the latest top 10 totalling 1 million people per year).

      No European country has been in the top 10 going back to 1990 and beyond.

    2. Velv Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Who are Americans?

      All people everywhere gain their personal "standpoint" from the views presented by people around them. From their family, their peers, their social groups (including religious groups), TV, film, and sports and all the daily media. Some of those around them may present conflicting views and they make a choice of standpoint.

      They don't inherit it genetically.

  16. LaeMing
    Megaphone

    I guess it is time

    for all the post-op/hormone-treatment trans-gender people across the US to descend on this place and make a show of using the bathrooms they are now legally required to. En masse. Ideally forming a nice long queue. The more masculine-looking the XXs and the more feminine-looking the XYs (all other variants as they feel appropriate) the better!

    1. d3vy Silver badge

      Re: I guess it is time

      There was a guy who tweeted the law maker pointing out that he is legally required to share a bathroom with the law makers wife now.

      Big guy, bushy beard.

      I think that tweet alone highlights the issue that they have opened themselves up to now.

      @JayShef is his account

      This is the specific post http://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144/photo/1

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I guess it is time

      I up voted you but then realized that this could all be plot to fill for profit prisons if the transgendered do as you suggest.

      1. LaeMing
        Unhappy

        Re: I guess it is time

        I am only suggesting they obey the law of the region they are in. You can't go to prison for that. Wait. 'Merica. Nevermind.

  17. DrM

    It's pretty basic these days -- if you are a white heterosexual male, then every "freedom" always gives you the short end of the stick. Gee, we wouldn't want to offend or give LGBT's bad feelings. Ah, what about my feelings? Oh yeah, I'm white hetero, they don't count.

    Every freedom is being concerned about how some minority might have bad feelings, but my feelings don't matter -- ever. The "compromise" is always the same -- we agree going to do this so that group X doesn't feel bad, and my feelings just don't come into the equation. Thank you NC.

    And you wonder how that Bozo Trump can get people riled up? Just keep feeding him ammo like this.

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      " if you are a white heterosexual male, then every "freedom" always gives you the short end of the stick"

      Are you serious...? White males have ruled the world for millennia. Where exactly is "the short end of the stick" in that?

      And where exactly does "heterosexual" come into it?

      If I'm taking a leak in a public toilet I tend not to bother looking at other people - not because I'm shy, just that I'm not that interested in who they are or what they're doing (I have a pretty good idea anyway without having to look). If only these cretin legislators could do the same.

      Wow, I love these articles - they really bring the trolls out in droves so that we can have a good laugh... :-)

    2. DougS Silver badge

      How does this law infringe on your rights as a white hetero male, aside from your right to discriminate against others you feel you are better than?

      Anyway, I don't have a problem with this law. It was legally passed by the government of North Carolina, and the citizens of the state have the option to vote in new politicians if they don't agree with it. Companies have the option to stop doing business in North Carolina if they don't like the law, and if enough do the economic pressure on the state will either force them to change or at least act to the benefit of states that do not have such laws.

      Those who don't agree with it should put pressure on major employers in the state to withdraw, or at least cancel any expansion plans they might have, like PayPal did. That's how the battle over apartheid was won in South Africa, not by violence or protests from within the country. Likewise, those who oppose this law can hold all the gay pride parades they want in North Carolina, but it won't change the minds of those who support this law - if anything it will strengthen their support.

      When the supporters get laid off because the restaurant they work at closes because businesses are moving out, or when their kid's school starts declining in educational quality because their local tax base is being eroded, then they might change their tune.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        That's how the battle over apartheid was won in South Africa, not by violence or protests from within the country.

        Nope, there is no evidence that it was the boycotts that led to change.

        1. small and stupid

          Gorbachev ended apartheid.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "That's how the battle over apartheid was won in South Africa, [...]"

        Sanctions had several bad effects.

        One - they stimulated the Afrikaners' traditional reaction of circling the wagons - creating a "laager". The ruling classes became ideologically more entrenched.

        Two - they depressed the economy at a time when "job reservation" laws were having to become more flexible to allow modern industries to recruit non-white staff for skilled jobs. That skilled labour also needed better education opportunities. An economic boom in various industries would have benefited the non-whites.

        Three - the economic effects on the population were felt most by the poor township people. The richer elites of all races made sure they themselves were ok. Political ideology meant that poor whites were guaranteed a minimum income. The parliamentary system was such that a small conservative "dorp" in the Platteland could elect one MP with only a few hundred white voters. The more liberal big cities' constituencies had one MP for several thousand white voters.

        One common refrain from Afrikaners was that things might have turned out differently if they had been like the USA - and almost eliminated the black population 200 years ago.

    3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

      "It's pretty basic these days -- if you are a white heterosexual male, then every "freedom" always gives you the short end of the stick."

      Oh dear. Here's a tip: grow up & grow a pair, mate!

    4. KA1AXY

      Old, white, hetero male here. I could care less abt the technical details. As long as there are bathrooms available, and everyone can do their business in peace and relative comfort, the gender, assigned or natural, of the person in the next stall is of no concern to me, nor should it be to you.

      I have plenty of more important things to worry about, and so, I suspect, do you.

      1. LaeMing
        Unhappy

        But there is the rub. A depressingly large portion of humanity /don't/ have anything more important to worry about. Sad little lives, really.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Riddle me this Batman

    A woman (said to be born a man) goes into a bathroom.

    A man (said to born a women) goes into a bathroom.

    etc...

    What do they do?

    Answer, they use a STALL.

    Who is looking at them in a stall?

    Where's the problem?

    Or are these fundies associating sexual gender differences as a crime?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Riddle me this Batman

      "Who is looking at them in a stall?"

      Besides, it would not matter a bit anyway, because a transgendered person is not aroused by the sight of a member of the sex he or she desires to be.

      "Or are these fundies associating sexual gender differences as a crime?"

      Probably they have no understanding of the phenomenon at all, and anyway there is an Old Testament passage that says it is forbidden to wear clothes of the opposite sex, so that's the end of it as far as they are concerned.

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        Re: Riddle me this Batman

        "a transgendered person is not aroused by the sight of a member of the sex he or she desires to be"

        Not sure this is universally true, I know a couple of M-to-F and F relationships.

        Then there's Thomas Beatie who clearly retained an interest in men.

        Personally I've never seen the point of gender specific toilets at all, unless it's at a nightclub where the gents is a sea of urine.

      2. TJ1

        Re: Riddle me this Batman

        "because a transgendered person is not aroused by the sight of a member of the sex he or she desires to be."

        Ah, I see you've not met my friend who is a trans-sexual female Lesbian ... and last I remember when around in great clonking hob-nail boots whilst sporting vivid pink shoulder length hair!

        Still, made it easy to get into and out of crowds just by tucking in behind her :)

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Riddle me this Batman

      Yes, the stall. I think all swimming pools in the UK have a single changing area now - they don't separate by gender. At least all the ones I've used in the last 20 years. What's the big deal about toilets? Why not have just one for all like many restaurants?

      I think the answer is that women would not like the stink and mess in a mens room, they would miss their deep pile carpets, satin soft furnishings and scatter cushions.

      And men would not like to have to queue like the women sometimes have to.....

      But you frequently see a father accompany his young daughter to the mens, and I'm sure mothers take their little sons into the ladies.

  19. To Mars in Man Bras!
    Facepalm

    Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

    It seems every man who's ever worn a bit of eyeliner and every woman who's ever cut her hair short is now "transgendered". I even saw Eddie Izzard, described as "transgendered" in reports about his recent marathon-walking stunt. It's becoming as boring as "ethnic minorities" and the contrived use of "she" in programming manuals, because "Ya. You know. Wimmin's issues!"

    I'm 100% for equality, but can we not just quietly protect people's human rights without turning every fucking advance into the new "Meme of the Day"?

    1. A K Stiles

      Re: Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

      The Izzard article just sounds like a bit of lazy or stupid journalism where they couldn't be bothered to find the word 'transvestite'.

      As I go through life, I can't help but think more and more that the correct term for someone who wears outfits not traditionally aimed at their (birth/genetic/identified) gender is 'person', and what they choose to wear are 'clothes'.

      Thanks be to all for covering up the somewhat distracting bits in the day to day public context - male or female, attractive or otherwise, general office nudity would break my concentration every time a co-worker wobbled past my desk, at least for the first couple of weeks, though I expect it wouldn't take too long to become an accepted 'norm'. <Deity> knows what temperature we'd need the office heating set to if that were the case, but at least people wouldn't borrow each other's chairs!

      It would also be great if we could introduce a non-gendered nominative term for the English language to replace him/her/his/hers, similar apparently to (some of?) the Scandinavians - heck this is the English language, we should go with history and just steal one of theirs!

      1. TJ1

        Re: Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

        "... general office nudity would break my concentration every time a co-worker wobbled past my desk, ..."

        Ah, the joys of working from home :p

      2. MacroRodent Silver badge

        Re: Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

        It would also be great if we could introduce a non-gendered nominative term for the English language to replace him/her/his/hers, similar apparently to (some of?) the Scandinavians -

        Of the languages spoken in the area, only Finnish and Sami (spoken by the indigenous people of Lapland, and related to Finnish) have gender-neutral personal pronouns.

        heck this is the English language, we should go with history and just steal one of theirs!

        You are welcome! Here is the Finnish version: "hän" = "he/she".

        The "ä" is pronounced like the "a" in "hat".

        1. A K Stiles

          Re: Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

          Thanks - couldn't remember the specifics (countries or words) off the top of my head at the time.

          So, this being English, we'll drop the umlaut, (who needs a clue as to how something is pronounced?) and use han, rhymes with can, van, ban, tan, ran and LAN.

          For his/hers we'll just use 'hans' rather than the original 'en' ending. Just pondering the him/her option and debating between 'hanet' or keeping it simpler and reusing 'han'...

          1. MacroRodent Silver badge

            Re: Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

            Just pondering the him/her option and debating between 'hanet' or keeping it simpler and reusing 'han'...

            Suggest you keep it simple, as your language rationalisation project would quickly run aground if you try to import the whole Finnish system of noun cases ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_noun_cases ).

        2. x 7 Silver badge

          Re: Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

          "It would also be great if we could introduce a non-gendered nominative term for the English language to replace him/her/his/hers, similar apparently to (some of?) the Scandinavians -"

          already exists: "it", "its"

          1. A K Stiles
            Joke

            Re: Is Transgendered the new [Ms.] Black?

            But then we'd all end up sounding like Gollum from the Lord of The Rings! (What does it think of its postses?)

  20. Cari

    So let me get this straight...

    Instead of carrying on and setting a good example they're denying the people of the state jobs, because they don't like how the state is responding to an issue even genuine social justice advocates can't agree on?

    Instead of paying all their staff a fair living wage at least, they're denying the people jobs because the state won't legally force them to pay a decent wage?

    Instead of setting up their business in the state, and doing away with open-plan, gender segregated bathrooms altogether for their business, and opting to have multiple single room, non-gendered bathrooms, they're taking the easy way out?

    (Seriously, what's not to like about private individual toilet rooms? And they're in a better position to implement such a system within their work place than small businesses who manage to do that regardless.)

    Or is this all a lot more complicated than the article makes it out to be?

    Because from where I stand, it looks like PayPal are fucking over the little people to thumb their nose at the state.

    They're using "equality" as an excuse to flex their muscles and undermine the people's democracy.

    And in the process, they're also painting a target on everyone they purport to give a crap about.

    That's at least 400 people who are going to be directing their anger at the potential loss of job opportunities, not at the state or PayPal where it should be directed, but at the people PayPal have used as justification for their own selfish actions.

    "The legislation was passed in a single day, and was unopposed in the Senate after Democratic members walked out en masse, calling the process an abuse of power. "

    Is this like in the UK when opposition parties "abstain" when voting on contentious issues because they're too cowardly to say they agree with the majority party on the issue, or was there genuinely nothing they could do but walk out?

    1. small and stupid

      Re: So let me get this straight...

      Paypal will open somewhere else, and 400 'little people' in another state will get jobs. Seems zero-sum.

      I think the dems abstained because they couldnt win, so refusing to participate was more newsworthy.

      1. James Hughes 1

        Re: So let me get this straight...

        @Cari.

        Don't blame Paypal for this. They are simply sticking to their principles.

        Blame the NC Legislature.

        Paypal will open up elsewhere, those 400 people will have a job, and the state they open in will get the benefits.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Don't blame Paypal for this. They are simply sticking to their principles."

          Really? I mean, really??

          The only principles PayPal have is to gouge everyone for as much as possible, to act like a bank, but not be protected at all.

        2. Cari

          Re: So let me get this straight...

          They don't have any principles! None of these businesses do. They are using us (women and minorities) for easy brownie points with the masses and to exert influence over our governments.

    2. Someone_Somewhere

      Re: So let me get this straight...

      >Instead of setting up their business in the state, and doing away with open-plan, gender segregated bathrooms altogether for their business, and opting to have multiple single room, non-gendered bathrooms, they're taking the easy way out?

      Until someone complains that their bigotry religious sensibilities are being infringed upon, sues the company and obliges it and all its employees to conform to /their/ standards.

      > Because from where I stand, it looks like PayPal are fucking over the little people to thumb their nose at the state.

      >They're using "equality" as an excuse to flex their muscles and undermine the people's democracy.

      Nice straw man you've got there - oh, won't somebody think of the 'little people'?

      Let's take that approach and apply it to the Civil Rights Movement, shall we?

      Slavery is illegal unless the state wants it - In which case, oh, okay, go ahead then?

      What you're proposing is a democracy in which the fortunate few are entitled to impose their will on the majority of others because their imaginary friend says it's okay.

      How about I move to your neighbourhood and exercise my religious right to lynch bigots?

      Seriously, what century did you crawl out from under?

      1. Cari

        Re: So let me get this straight...

        This one, but I'm wondering why the rest of you are stuck in the dark ages.

        Are you seriously excusing both the government of the state AND Paypal for fucking over the people, and especially trans people, because you think some person somewhere will have religious objections to individual, non-gendered, lockable bathrooms?

        Is your hatred of "the enemy" that strong you'd happily see those you ~believe~ yourself to champion, to go without - or worse, be made targets of?

        And for the record, I use "the people" as a point of concern because I am one of them. Not in NC, but I'm one of "the little people", the marginalised, that these companies, self-righteous socialites, and all the weasely guilt ridden gits, use as a pawn in games for their own self interest.

        I'm fucking sick of it, and I sure as shit ain't the only one.

      2. Cari

        Re: So let me get this straight...

        "How about I move to your neighbourhood and exercise my religious right to lynch bigots?"

        You're welcome to try, but this 5ft 6in, 8st, not-bigotted woman will make that impossible for you. Internet tough guys have nothing on my ex, and I came out on top there.

        Also, thanks for my first ever death threat!

        As a woman in gaming, geekdom, and formerly tech, it's amazing that I've never had one from the alleged basement dwelling misogynerds that are supposed to be handing them out left and right.

        It's taken 16 years for me to finally see one at all! And from some ~virtuous~ arsehole that. I'd be more surprised, but I know the worst offenders are those who don't like when the people they "speak for" talk back.

        1. Cari

          Re: @Someone_Somewhere- So let me get this straight...

          Sorry, I say first ever death threat, but I mean online. I had a real one from my ex, and he'd have done me in too if he had the chance.

          Needless to say, I made it not worth the risk.

          1. Someone_Somewhere

            Re: @Someone_Somewhere- So let me get this straight...

            Oh, for Heaven's sake.

            Right, I'm gonna have to deal with this in a somewhat different order to that in which you wrote it - one of us has to try and deal with this coherently; and it's not gonna be you, is it?

            > As a woman in gaming, geekdom, and formerly tech, it's amazing that I've never had one from the alleged basement dwelling misogynerds that are supposed to be handing them out left and right. <

            So, to summarise: yadda, yadda, yadda, irrelevant, histrionic, identity-pölitics-based nonsense.

            > Also, thanks for my first ever death threat! [...] It's taken 16 years for me to finally see one at all! [...] Sorry, I say first ever death threat, but I mean online.<

            Okay, as I said 'your neighbourhood', I can see how a narcissist could take that personally - how could you not?

            However, I did /not/ make a death threat, I asked a rhetorical question - you'll note I said 'bigots', not 'you.' It's interesting though that you should feel that the word 'bigot' is close enough to home to require denial rather than merely amusingly inappropriate.

            But, whether I think you're needlessly getting your panties in a twist or not is immaterial: I phrased it the way I did and you felt threatened, so, let me make it perfectly clear that

            a) my personal value system/morals/philosophy/call it what you will precludes me from taking the life of another unless in defence of those threatened by that other - I'm not even sure I'd be prepared to defend my own life, if no-one else needed defending.

            b) even if I /were/ a homicidal maniac, I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to make a death threat online!

            The worst you have to fear from me is that I supply you with enough metaphorical rope to 'hang yourself' with. Not that it looks like you need any help from anyone else in that regard - you're doing just fine on your own so far.

            > I had a real one from my ex, and he'd have done me in too if he had the chance. <

            I'm sorry to hear that, but it has no relevance here, unless you're looking to gain brownie points for being a victim in an entirely unrelated sphere.

            Moreover, I am not your ex and, so, it's not even remotely pertinent to me.

            > And from some ~virtuous~ arsehole that. <

            So, I'm virtuous, am I?

            Thankyou!

            I've always feared I was an irredeemable sinner myself, but if even someone like you thinks I'm on my way to sainthood, maybe I should reconsider that.

            > I'd be more surprised, but I know the worst offenders are those who don't like when the people they "speak for" talk back.<

            Nope, you're absolutely right there: people like you don't like it when others call them on their BS.

            What people like you /do/ like though is, just as you have done here, going on the pseudo passive-aggressive offensive, accusing others of aggression, in order to paint themselves as the victim when, in reality, /they're/ the aggressor.

            > Needless to say, I made it not worth the risk. <

            Is that a veiled threat?

            If it is, let me say, I'm not in the least bit surprised - in fact, I'd be surprised if it weren't.

            If not - and I've no doubt whatsoever that you'll backpeddle and claim I'm putting words in your mouth; bullies always do when they're called out - then what are you telling me for? Am I supposed to be impressed/intimidated? Or is it for the benefit of the onlookers here?

            Just because you're a woman, don't think we aren't aware of the fact that women like you oppress other women as much as any man - often more in fact - you just get away with it because you don't do so /physically/.

            I find your pean to the 'little people' singularly appropriate. Not due to your physical stature - unlike you, I'm not influenced by your sex, sexuality, gender, age, race, ethnicity, size, etc.* - but because you are such a /little/ person - there really isn't much to you, is there?

            I've encountered your like all too many times in my life, unfortunately, and they are invariably mean-spirited, little individuals whose only concern is their right to oppress others in the name of whatever excuse (often an imaginary friend of 'divine' provenance) their tiny minds can conceive.

            They label anyone and everyone who dares to disagree with that 'right' as an oppressor/aggressor and play the victim, when, in fact, it is /they/ who are the oppressor and aggressor. Your attempt to paint me in that ligh notwithstanding, passive aggression is no less aggressive than overt aggression and so, you can whine and bleat as much as you like, put as many words as you like in my mouth, but you're not fooling me or anyone else here - hence the number of people who have responded negatively to your bigotry - we know what you are and we're calling you out on it.

            Your sort never learn however - you're congenitally incapable of doing so, even if (by some miracle) you were ever to be inclined to do so - so let's just agree never to speak to each other ever again. You ignore me and I'll ignore you - I've no doubt that others will be willing to call you out for your bigotry many more times over the course of your unfortunate existence and really don't wish to have my spirit/soul sullied by any further contact.

            * all I care about is whether people are decent human beings or not.

          2. Kurt Meyer

            Re: @Someone_Somewhere- So let me get this straight...

            @Cari

            "Needless to say..."

            Evidently not.

      3. Fatman Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: So let me get this straight...

        <snip>

        Slavery is illegal unless the state wants it - In which case, oh, okay, go ahead then?

        What you're proposing is a democracy in which the fortunate few are entitled to impose their will on the majority of others because their imaginary friend says it's okay.

        How about I move to your neighbourhood and exercise my religious right to lynch bigots people based upon their skin color?

        Seriously, what century did you crawl out from under?

        </snip>

        I believe that a correct answer would be the 16th through the 19th.

  21. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    States rights & hypocrisy

    There are two things here to consider:

    1) The fundamental issue behind laws like this is the unresolved issue of "states rights" – the one that led to the civil war. This will continue until there is a concerted political attempt to resolve it. Whether we like it or not, these laws are passed legislatures that, by any standard, are democratically elected. Conversely, I think many of these campaigns spring from a sense of impotence faced with the inability to impose post-enlightenment policies throughout the US.

    2) The hypocrisy of companies. It's politically cool on the West coast to pay lip service to the "diversity industry" and the costs for companies like PayPal not to set up an office in North Carolina are minimal. It's not as if it's ceasing to offer its services there. And when it comes to the moral highground: I don't remember any memo from Paypal on not wanting to do business with China, Saudi Arabia, etc.

    1. KA1AXY

      Re: States rights & hypocrisy

      "States rights" is code for "let us discriminate and don't tell us we can't"

      At least, that's how it seems lately

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: States rights & hypocrisy

        '"States rights" is code for "let us discriminate and don't tell us we can't"'

        And that is why we in the UK are having a referendum about leaving the EU - the outers want the right to discriminate as they see fit.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: States rights & hypocrisy

        "States rights" is code for "let us discriminate and don't tell us we can't"

        At least, that's how it seems lately

        Possibly. It's certainly being used as a shield for people pushing particular agendas. But, the same is also true to a lesser extent for the left that attempts to use legislation to push its own agendas.

        Whatever we may think of any particular agenda, there is legal grounds for debate which is why we see so much hee-hawing in the decisions of the supreme court. Now that the SCOTUS can be split we may see a raft of legislation by states knowing that it cannot be overturned by a split SCOTUS.

  22. Hubert Thrunge Jr.
    Mushroom

    Ahem...

    May I draw your attention to that what is known as the "Lemon Test", laid down by SCOTUS which clearly states that "The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs"

    If this is not such a law, then fair enough, but it smells like State and Church joined at the hip, which is against the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, as per the letter from Thomas Jefferson which uses the words "a wall between state and church".

    I don't care what's in the legislation, it just smells of religion interfering with state, as opposed to state interfering with religion.

    Nuke Icon because that's the way it'll go if left un-checked!

  23. msknight Silver badge

    I'm stuffed...

    ...because I can't change my birth certificate. The UK government won't let me. I can get a supplemental piece of paper, but the original record remains unaltered.

    We're an international world; shame the Americans still don't think beyond their own borders.

    (not that I actually care, to be brutally honest. At the end of the day the vast majority of people are perfectly fine and in the decades I've been over, no one has batted an eyelid about which toilets I use, anywhere in Europe. But the issue does impact a trip to Ohio I've got planned.)

    So what do I actually care about? Well, the bigots getting themselves in to positions of power where they can deliberately impact the lives of people they don't like. And that the rest of the population actually stand there and listen to the crappy screeching coming out of the emotional violins they're playing, without thinking for themselves and saying, "Hang on a cotton picking minute..." That's the bits that grinds my gears.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm stuffed...

      Your birth certificate is a simply a single record of how you appeared to be close to your birth, given the technology, the ability to categorise at that time and the information available.

      You presumably have more flexibility with your passport, a document that aims to be a more current snapshot of who you now are?

      1. msknight Silver badge

        Re: I'm stuffed...

        Yes, and driving license, on which they even changed the secret gender identification code. (which, obviously, isn't as secret as they thought it was, even in the 90's.) However, the US law specifically states the birth certificate is what they take the determination from.

        There is a question bounding around the UK government which seems to be asking what use the gender identifier actually is, on legal documents anyway, which I think is a much more useful question to ponder than adding extra options for, "neither of the above."

        But... that's for the next generation.

  24. Mockduncan

    How to make American bathrooms safer

    Stop people taking guns into them.

  25. Steve B

    Non Issue

    I went to Belgium in the 60s on a school trip with my Mum. Her school was a girl's school so my little brother and I were the only males.

    One night we went to a "cafe" and had to use the toilet, which was hilarious as it was a mixed sex with urinals on the way in. Very embarassing for my brother and I but great fun for the older girls, nightmare for my Mum who was trying to keep them under control.

    But if they have been sharing toilets in Europe for 50 odd years with no problems, is there really an issue?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Non Issue

      "One night we went to a "cafe" and had to use the toilet, which was hilarious as it was a mixed sex with urinals on the way in."

      Benny Hill once did a comedy sketch on that subject - probably in the 1980s. A man thought his wife being silly because she wouldn't go to that sort of toilet. Finally she did and found it was ok. Then it was her husband's turn - and he flat refused to go in. Plenty of laughs for the audience in that portrayal - his devoted French audience probably thought it typical of the English.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Non Issue

      But if they have been sharing toilets in Europe for 50 odd years with no problems, is there really an issue?

      Not in the countries that do this. But what does that have to do with legislation in North Carolina?

  26. dncnvncd

    Does anyone remember it all started with "get the government out of my bedroom"?

    In my last retirement I drove an 18 wheeler across America for over 10 years. As such, it meant there were a lot of visits to bathrooms from customers to truck stops to rest areas. There were some states that had closed rest area bathrooms after a certain time for "safety" concerns. Some had a reputation for homosexual activity. North Carolina always had clean rest areas with an attendant on duty and in some cases a state police sub-station. It is also home to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Billy Graham Assn., Duke University, the Research Triangle, numerous foreign trade zones and industrial parks and home to NASCAR. In all that PayPal with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies biting at their heels feel some great economic leverage over taxpayer financed investment and 400 jobs? The practical effect of this is that restrooms are being constructed or revamped to be closed individual stalls and eventually each will need a lock so the proprietor won't get sued. But who listens to a person so confused they don't know what sex they are?

  27. evilhippo

    No this is nothing like Jim Crow Laws

    How about the state minds its own business and lets anyone "discriminate" on any grounds they want? Don't like a company's policies? Then don't work for them or do business with them.

    People saying this is a Jim Crow Law are 100% wrong: Jim Crow Laws were the Democrat Party passing laws that MANDATED discrimination (it was illegal NOT to discriminate against blacks in certain legally specified ways).

    What this law does is says it is not up to the STATE to decide who people choose to associate with.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you want immoral and distasteful

    Read your bible

  29. RonWheeler

    Genuine question

    So the entire team of highschool male jocks decides to wander into the female showers and get naked in front of the naked females. That is now okay/legal as long as they claim female is their sexual identity?

    Not trying to be reactionary and would in-an-ideal-world- like everyone to go to the bathroom they choose. But - just want some sort of safeguards against regular heterosexual pervs.

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      Re: Genuine question

      "highschool male jocks" is so far beyond the bounds of probability (or possibility) that it's an invalid proposition - and is in any case already covered by various privacy/decency laws. No need to make things worse by taking the stupid NC path.

    2. A K Stiles

      Re: Genuine question

      In the spirit of non-reactionary discussion...

      I think the same safeguard that existed a forthnight ago - societal mores and trained staff who are well aware of whether any of those 'jocks' had displayed any sense of gender discrepancy up to that point in time (preference for female clothing, etc.) and, if it's truely a newly emerging factor for one or more of them, the option to utilise a separate facility away from either birth-gender group, who are more likely to make the trans-individual uncomfortable than the other way round.

      What are you aiming to safeguard against? Is it sexualisation of some attendant individuals by one or more others present?

      Would it be more of an issue for you to have a trans-gender individual share facilities with their identified gender or for a homosexual person to share the facilities with others of the same birth-gender?

      How about the post-surgery trans-female who, according to this law now has to share the showers with all the hairy-arsed jocks, despite the fact that they now have defined breasts and lack a scrotum and penis?

      Perhaps the end-solution is unisex facilities with individual, lockable toilet stalls and shower cubicles rather than the mass open-plan options we've all faced at school and elsewhere. It might help prevent some of the endless bullying that seems to have gone on in schools for time immemorial.

      1. RonWheeler

        Re: Genuine question

        Define trans-gender individual? Not baiting here - what is to stop a (statistically mode) normal bloke walking into the female showers then claim to be trans-gender?

        1. x 7 Silver badge

          Re: Genuine question

          "what is to stop a ..... normal bloke walking into the female showers then claim to be trans-gender?"

          there might be the problem of a visible erection? That would be a bit of a giveaway

          1. RonWheeler

            Re: Genuine question

            So if a gay man gets an erection in the male showers he should be punished?

            1. x 7 Silver badge

              Re: Genuine question

              "So if a gay man gets an erection in the male showers he should be punished?"

              no, he'd probably enjoy it.

              in reality its a difficult question that needs a lot of chewing over, though my initial reaction is to kick his head in.

    3. HausWolf

      Re: Genuine question

      As tolerant as the jock culture is, I'm pretty sure a whole team of trans claiming female identity does not exist.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Reg - keep your politics to yourself

    Reg - if you expect me to get pummeled by your puerile politics to read tech news, you're going to be disappointed. My politics are not bonkers.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can't we all just get along?

    If this makes it past the censors at El Reg, I'll be Amazed!* (see below)

    Seriously.

    Here's why this whole layer of shitcake sticks in my craw. And Yeah, I *AM* an American. Born in Tennessee, raised in Florida, and holy shit, I believe in equality for all people. Except pedophiles. They serve no purpose in society except to teach the current generation how to tie and use a noose properly.

    It isn't the gay/lesbian/trangender/whatever-gender-you-are-today mess that bothers me.

    It's the fact that this is based on a religious superstition. It's about giving bible-thumping nutballs the excuse to discriminate, and the permission to rednecks to beat on a drag queen that has to pop a squat, but doesn't want to suffer the horror that is the women's restroom.

    It says, "If you are an Old School Christian, you don't have to do anything for poofters or Nancy's in a blouse, or blokes in trousers."

    Really? Is this the mid 1800's? (or the mid 1990's in the middle east?)

    I honestly can't *WAIT* for some middle eastern push-or-pull-start indian to deny one of those christ-spouting-holier-than-thou imbeciles the 'privilege' of purchasing a tank of gas because they're hardcore old-school Muslim, and the preacher's wife had the *audacity* to not only be in public without being wrapped in an area rug that has only eye holes cut in it, but *SPOKE ALOUD* in the presence of the all-controlling-I-know-better-than-you-ever-will Menfolk. That offended their 'religious sensibilities' (insane as they can be), and now that sort of behavior is encouraged by the word of law. After all, if Christians (aka, narrow-minded shitbags) can discriminate based on their religion, and America is all about equality and freedom, why can't other religions discriminate?

    Wonder how quick it'll take to repeal that retarded law written and endorsed by dim-witted, paste-eating, feeble-minded, brainwashed, mouth-breathing, sister-humping, self-important, brain-damaged, inbred, self-righteous, narrow-minded, egotistical, slack-jawed, cross-eyed fucktards.

    Especially since most corporations that could actually bring money into their backwater states have either put their plans on hold, or outright *cancelled* them due to the dumbfuckery that signed the bills into law. (Except Chic-Fil-A. They hate those that bat for the pink or sausage teams)

    All because some bloke wants to wear a skirt, or some dame wants to wear trousers and be called 'Sir' or 'Miss', or use the restroom of their choice?

    I'm sorry, I can't understand your bigoted and discriminatory reasoning. Could you go kill yourself so you don't pollute the gene pool? Thanks, mate.

    And for those that worry about 'perverts' coveting their children -

    Your "precious" children are far more at risk on the internet than in a public restroom. If you are that concerned about it, pop that tit (aka, smartphone or tablet) out of their mouth and *EDUCATE* them. Raising a child that possesses common sense is *YOUR* responsibility. For them to be treated equally and fairly is the responsibility of *SOCIETY*. If you don't like it, change it. If you're too lazy (aka, "busy") or stupid or passive-aggressive to change it, STFU and move your ignorant asses somewhere else. Like North Carolina. They'll tell you what to think, and about who.

    Just my drunk-on-my-day-off-at-11AM opinion. Like it? Yay. Don't like it? Don't give a shit. Or even a fart, for that matter. Those 'laws' are outright retarded, and those that wrote and endorsed them need to be stuffed into brightly colored sacks, hung from trees, and all the illegal immigrants from south 'o the border told they're pinatas. Should make for an interesting evening.

    *Get one free Amazed of equal or lesser value with the belief of this Amazed!

    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Can't we all just get along?

      Ordinary I'd zap this, but for pure comedy value I've let it through.

      Keep the replies vaguely civil or expect to have your comments zapped and end up on the pre-moderation naughty step.

    2. Fatman Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Can't we all just get along?

      <snip>

      I honestly can't *WAIT* for some middle eastern push-or-pull-start indian to deny one of those christ-spouting-holier-than-thou imbeciles the 'privilege' of purchasing a tank of gas because they're hardcore old-school Muslim, and the preacher's wife had the *audacity* to not only be in public without being wrapped in an area rug that has only eye holes cut in it, but *SPOKE ALOUD* in the presence of the all-controlling-I-know-better-than-you-ever-will Menfolk. That offended their 'religious sensibilities' (insane as they can be), and now that sort of behavior is encouraged by the word of law. After all, if Christians (aka, narrow-minded shitbags) can discriminate based on their religion, and America is all about equality and freedom, why can't other religions discriminate?

      </snip>

      Man, do I like your way of thinking.

      </snark>

      I am trying to wrap my head around the idea of the local Muslim community demonstrating outside the (heathen) Christian houses of worship demanding that Christian females start dressing modestly. Get out your burka ladies!

      I have lived in the South since the early 1970's, after leaving the Midwest. While in the more urban locations, the 'temperament' of society has slowly become better, all one has to do it to travel to its """backwoods""" to experience time travel. In some of these places far off the beaten path, you may get to experience what life was like nearly 100 years ago.

      Simply put, if you ain't a white middle class Anglo-Saxon male you ain't shit.

      Females need not apply.

      Blacks and browns need not apply.

      Jews and any other non Christians need not apply.

      If you don't have any money, you need not apply.

      IOW - if you are NOT Donald Trump, the rich local banker or businessman you need not apply.

      BUT, if you worship Jesus Christ, and spread HIS Holy Word, then The Kingdom, The Power and The GloryTM are all yours.

  32. Old Handle
    Unhappy

    On the one hand, this law sucks, on the other hand I have problems with big corporations trying to push democratically elected governments around. Just recently Georgia's governor vetoed a religious-freedom bill* under similar pressure. But goodness knows this kind of corporate bullying it goes on all the time, although much less publicly, and that sucks too.

    *This one would have protected people's right not to make cakes they don't agree with. While many might put the two laws in the category, from my libertarian perspective they aren't the same at all.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      No doubt, after sufficient time has passed and some tax incentives or more "right to work" (ie. no unions here) legislation is passed they'll come back having "reevaluated" the situation.

  33. smartypants

    Pervert.

    Where I grew up, the phrase was "not normal", and if you were one of those, well it was open season. In my life I've seen my society grow up, and though not perfect, the screams of the Big Johns (here at least) are seen for what they are now. Sad.

    Big John has done us all a service. There's a simple question we all need to answer.

    Do we want to live in a society where people like him get to decide who is allowed to be a human and who has such labels applied to them, rendering them subhuman and stripping them of rights? Do we want to return to a state where the loudest alpha male (and it's always a male) defines who should hide and cower in fear of their lives for being what they are, and just as bad, the rest of us quietly pretending to agree for fear of being labelled too?

    Or do we rise above merely being tribal, pig-ignorant animals and try to work at building a civilisation where we all have the chance of getting on? A world where the state and the powerful don't see it as their job to run around making other people's lives a misery. What a fucking waste of our time on this good planet I say.

    Well it's a question for every one of us. Civilisation has to be worked at. Each and every day.

    I feel sorry for Americans. America is held back by its Big Johns. And to think that the occupants of the Mayflower set out on a quest to escape from bigotry... I wish I could find something funny in the irony.

    So, if it helps, I'm a pervert too. I have no idea in which way I am perverted, but I'm sure Big John will find a way, so I'll save him the bother and just label myself.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Pervert.

      "I feel sorry for Americans."

      Objectively, then, you are in a minority because most of the world's population would be happy to have been born there. (The same goes for most of Europe, as is now painfully obvious.) Nowhere is perfect, but the USA is one of humanity's better efforts and we should recognise that even as we lay into its more imbecilic aspects and reactionary tendencies.

      "America is held back by its Big Johns."

      Not really. The Big Johns are making a lot of noise because the writing is on the wall and they've lost. Fifty years ago you would have found similar attitudes almost everywhere. Now they are confined to just a few places. In the USA, it is possible for the rest of the population to turn round and say "You're a reactionary imbecile." and then campaign against you and turf you out. In most part of the USA, this has already happened. The system works, eventually. (Obligatory, but affectionate, dig: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else,”)

      1. Someone_Somewhere

        Re: the USA is one of humanity's better efforts

        which is really quite depressing when you think about it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pervert.

      "And to think that the occupants of the Mayflower set out on a quest to escape from bigotry...[...]"

      My understanding is that they were equally bigots too. That is a strain of Puritan intolerance still detectable in the USA today.

  34. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    The problem is in fact the opposite

    ISTM that the probability of someone getting molested is far, far higher if a man who is dressed as a woman uses a man's toilet than if he uses a woman's toilet.

    1. RonWheeler

      Re: The problem is in fact the opposite

      Thanks. One sane logical comment in the storm of mass PC stupidity.

  35. rhfish

    Paypal does not give a whit one way or the other about this or any other political issue.

    However America's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been taken over by radical lesbians that believe American industry must push their agenda or die. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/05/24/lesbian-eeoc-commissioner-chai-feldblum-re-nominated-for-second-term/

    They threatened to bring corporate Boy Scout sponsors to their knees if they did not fall in line on homosexuals. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm

    The current administration has weaponized our bureacracies including NASA, FCC, National Park Service, and the IRS for use against political opponents. Sets a very very bad precedent.

  36. Someone_Somewhere

    Re: America's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been taken over by radical lesbians

    Either your medication needs upping or I need to take brain-blitzing drugs until that sounds sane.*

    NURSE!

    * You do know they're really lizards, right?*

  37. YARR
    Flame

    religious freedom act is not bonkers - it's common sense

    Discrimination exists everywhere, when it's necesary and justified by reason it should be permitted. Arbitrary / unreasonable discrimination should be avoided.

    It's common sense that paedophiles should not be allowed to work with children. Arguing for their equal right to such employment is putting children at risk.

    Male gym teachers should not be permitted in female student's communal changing rooms and showers. Vice-versa.

    Gay and lesbian gym techers should not be permitted in student's communal changing rooms or showers for the same reason.

    All students should not be permitted in communal changing rooms for their opposite physical gender. Otherwise anyone could claim to have an opposite gender identity and abuse the privilege for their personal gratification.

    The needs of minorities should be considered and accommodated, but their rights should not come before the majority. In the case of transsexuals / opposing gender identity etc. they would ideally have separate facilities, or use them at a different time. But it's not right that the majority should suffer for the minority's benefit.

    re. "When even PayPal thinks you're bad, you know you've really jumped the tracks" - rubbish! What qualifies PayPal or any other corporation as having any moral or democratic authority? In corrupt societies money rules over moral principle - wealth buys you greater political influence than your vote would allow. Since PayPal has no vote, in a democratic society it has zero influence.

    It's high time we returned to the democratic principle of representing the will of the people, and formally separate corporations from state. Corporations should not be permitted to lobby politicians and interfere with state legislature.

    Did these CEO's consult their shareholders or their workforce for their opinions first? I doubt it - corporations are fascistic entities and CEOs are their dictators. It's time the ordinary people fought back - at the next shareholder meetings all these CEOs should be voted out and replaced with principled leaders who wont abuse their power by interfering in the political process. Why should the investors tolerate investment decisions based on the CEO's personal misguided prejudices over sound financial investment?

    1. Someone_Somewhere

      Re: religious freedom act is not bonkers - it's common sense

      I don't think it's the underlying principles of the RFA that is the problem so much as the way people twist its intent to suit their own fundamentalist (i.e. bigoted) agenda by (deliberately) misinterpreting the letter of the law.

      I instinctively want to disagree in principle but, so far at least, what you say /is/ just common sense.

      I'm conflicted - If only I didn't find myself agreeing with a lot of what you said /sigh/.

      I know: I won't upvote you* - that will allow me to continue feeling antipathetic towards you for no justifiable reason (so far) whilst still admitting that there may be some merit to your argument.

      --------

      EDIT

      Changed "there is some merit to your argument" to "there may be some merit to your argument".

      HA! I'm off the hook. ;)

      --------

      * no beer icon either - yah, boo, sucks to be you ;)

  38. MJI Silver badge

    Toilets

    I still remember at primary school, the boys was closed, so I used the girls, and got told off.

    I needed a pee.

    So I used a toilet.

    1. Someone_Somewhere

      Re: Toilets

      > So I used a toilet.

      Tut, tut.

      You're a boy; the whole /world/ is your toilet.

      Except the girls' toilets.

      Go in the playground!

      Front of the class with you.*

      * where we can keep an eye on you, you wreteched child!

  39. Old Englishman

    Leaving aside the sheer lying by the brownshirts ... the fact is that these same brownshirts have been making an utter nuisance of themselves. The state has moved to prevent them harassing others with lawsuits designed solely to force those they hate into endorsing their views, allowing weird men to force their way into girls' toilets, etc - surely common sense. In response the brownshirts shriek abuse.

    If the brownshirts win, you, my friends, will be next. The thing about this sort of thing is that no concession is ever enough.

    1. Someone_Somewhere

      Brownshirts?

      Is that a Nazi reference?

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “Real_ Doctors and scientists have yet to determine exactly what it is that 'makes someone gay“

    That's easy, all you need is a pervert to teach you :D

  41. oldpaul100
    Alert

    oldpaul100

    Just quickly read the offending document, full of legal doubletalk but seems clear about 'bathrooms' and changing rooms, single or multiple.

    In UK it's considered normal for Multiple Use facilies to be Single Sex only. Single use can be either sex with common wash facilities or having individual facilities.

    It seems the argument is over the definition of Sexuality. For L&G there is not much point it arguing about which 'classification' they come under. It's for B&T that where the problem arises. For B it would seem that the registered sex would be the obvious. For T it's obviously much more tricky.

    Here in the UK we have sort of got round this problem by having 'Disabled' Toilets which are indiscriminate in sexuality!

    The effect of adding the word 'biological' in front of sex in the Employment rights is not immediately obvious to me, perhaps I'm missing some background! Similarly making it a Statewide responsibilty would seems normal from here. What effect this and the contract terms would seem on the face of it quite neutral to LGTB arguments.

  42. gozzy71

    They were due to expand their before the law was even changed or thought of so obviosuly wasn't a problem for tehm a year ago :-) But of course expanding into Cuba is no problem at all - that morally updatnding nation with no civil rights violations ever !

  43. Brian Allan 1

    I'm an old fart and my logic is quite simple. You have a penis, you use the Men's room. You don't, you use the Ladies room. End of story!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019