Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Should other cities or states do things like this?

by Steven Haninger / April 18, 2016 3:58 AM PDT
Travel to North Carolina being banned by many US cities

Take your pick:

I think this to be foolish. What right do leaders who do this feel that they have to speak for the population at large? As well, who do they think they are punishing? All this talk about "uniting" us again falls backward when we do such things.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Should other cities or states do things like this?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Should other cities or states do things like this?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
They can't for personal travel.
by Diana Forum moderator / April 18, 2016 6:40 AM PDT

They can for employees on government business.

Collapse -
Another liberal case
by TONI H / April 18, 2016 7:19 AM PDT
Collapse -
RE: 'think and act as we dictate
by JP Bill / April 18, 2016 7:50 AM PDT
In reply to: Another liberal case
'think and act as we dictate or you will be punished for your "foolish" behavior'

Trump Quote?
Collapse -
That's backwards
by Steven Haninger / April 18, 2016 11:57 AM PDT

If an individual is so angry at the entire state of North Carolina that they refuse to go there, it's fine with me. It's still a stupid way to behave but it really hurts no one. My own city has joined into this madness and I'm not happy about it. In fact, I'm rather embarrassed that a few in government think they express the attitude of an entire electorate in all matters. AFAIC, what they are doing isn't in their job description.

Collapse -
works for me
by James Denison / April 18, 2016 12:41 PM PDT
In reply to: That's backwards

I've never had any desire to visit the land of fruits and nuts, California. Not crazy about earthquakes either.

Collapse -
If you didn't tell them
by JP Bill / April 18, 2016 1:38 PM PDT
In reply to: works for me

They would never had known.

Collapse -
Let's ban travel to "sanctuary cities" then.
by James Denison / April 18, 2016 12:39 PM PDT

*** for tat.

Collapse -
One dumb thing about this is that travel
by Steven Haninger / April 18, 2016 1:26 PM PDT

isn't necessary for many business purposes. Other than not spending motel and restaurant dollars, I don't see what point this makes. In the case of lost tourist dollars, it's those who benefit directly from that money that are hurt..ie, the motels, hotels, and local dining establishments. Why not ask these proprietors if they are willing to sacrifice their businesses for this cause? This is phony showmanship that will produce no good. People only learn how to cooperate with one another when they are permitted to meet and work together and not when they are forbidden to do so. I can't believe this is what anyone could call social advancement.

Collapse -
(NT) The people have voted them in
by Diana Forum moderator / April 18, 2016 1:38 PM PDT
Collapse -
To which side are you referring>
by TONI H / April 18, 2016 2:06 PM PDT

NC that voted to not allow transgenders in the 'wrong' bathroom/showers? Or the States with leaders who are banning the travel because of an agenda they wish to push/force onto other States that don't agree with them? Obviously, the goal is to hurt NC financially; however, it won't stop the governments on both sides from doing business as usual since there is always Skype/Net Meeting programs available, so in my opinion, it's pretty hypocritical. If nothing else, it will save those other States budget money that has probably already been spent now on other liberal crap instead of leaving it alone. The only time a liberal 'saves' money is when they can appropriate it to use it for something else they want instead.

Collapse -
And what did they promise the voters?
by Steven Haninger / April 18, 2016 2:24 PM PDT

Did they promise the voters that they'd send a message to any state not adhering to their own personal standards would be snubbed? Yeah...that's the most important concern we all have, isn't it?...that everyone be like us if you want to deal with us. That's about as ignorant as it gets.

Collapse -
Let the voters make this decision
by Steven Haninger / April 18, 2016 3:04 PM PDT

If the issue is restroom privacy, we can let public policy take the lead quite easily. Have the city or state construct all restrooms for single occupancy. All restrooms would be outfitted with whatever is needed for either gender. Anyone could walk into any government supplied restroom and find all that they needed and could do their business in complete privacy. No one would need to worry about who was in the stall next to them as there would only be one stall. Now, let the voters make that choice as a compromise but inform them that there would need to be a huge tax increase to make this happen. If the voters were really adamant about the need to correct gender identification issues with public restrooms, they'd jump on this and let their taxes go up. No fault, no guilt...just a chance to relieve oneself in privacy.

Collapse -
get rid of the shared bathroom
by James Denison / April 18, 2016 11:14 PM PDT

and have a line of single restrooms with lock on inside, pick one that's not occupied, like a line of porta-potties. Makes sense.

Collapse -
I do see "family" restrooms
by Steven Haninger / April 19, 2016 2:04 AM PDT

which are designed to allow a parent to assist a child or maybe a disabled person. I can't take exception to that. The "roadside rest" did result in a lot of difficulties in exception cases. There is a limit on how much we can do reasonably. It's a shame that restrooms have become opportunities for criminal and deviant behavior. When you think about it, what other time is a person as vulnerable as when they need to go. And when you think about it, men might even have it worse. With faces to the wall and no way to know who is behind them, it could get unnerving.

To me, this idiotic restroom issue does have a solution. That solution won't be immediate but would be fair. Pitting states and cities against other states like this is NOT a solution but the creation of another problem that's worse than what it claims to be addressing. Single occupancy restrooms would still have their problems but would fix this silly gender identity kerfuffle...which is little more than a political opportunity to cause more division.

Collapse -
Well...here's an alternative
by Steven Haninger / April 19, 2016 4:17 AM PDT

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!