If your argument is lacking proof, just create some:
That’s what happened, by the way, in a Seattle incident that ordinance opponents have pointed to a lot in the past week. There, a man walked into a women’s locker room, took off his shirt, and said it was legal. But it turns out he wasn’t a trangender person. He was apparently protesting Washington state’s non-discrimination law. And by being there in that locker room against management’s wishes, he was breaking the law.
So unless you count a guy that wanted to protect women by spooking them, that brings us back to zero reported bathroom issues. And zero is less than some of the other things you can protect us from (since you’re in the mood and all).
And when this "special" Legislative session takes place, it's a good bet one of the lawmakers pushing this big-government intervention in local affairs will mention this Seattle guy as proof of the "danger" inherent in Charlotte's actions. If that *is* brought up, I sincerely hope one of our Democratic lawmakers will set the record straight about the motives and ideology of the bathroom bandit in question. We've already got way too many bills that have been passed based on faulty or misrepresented information, and a reality check is long overdue.
http://ift.tt/21qy0aU
No comments:
Post a Comment