Religion

struggle4progress

(126,366 posts)

3. NC has anti-mask laws, historically related to KKK activity

Tue Oct 24, 2017, 03:23 PM

Oct 2017

§ 14-12.7 ... No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State ...

§ 14-12.8 ... No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina ...

§ 14-12.9 ... No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission, enter or come upon or into, or be upon or in the premises, enclosure or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this State ...

§ 14-12.10 ... No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, or make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall first obtain from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to do so, which said written permission shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which said property is located before the beginning of such meeting or demonstration ...

§ 14-12.14 ... It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to place or cause to be placed at or in any place in the State any exhibit of any kind whatsoever, with the intention of intimidating any person or persons, or of preventing them from doing any act which is lawful, or of causing them to do any act which is unlawful. For the purposes of this section, the term "exhibit" includes items such as a noose ...

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_4A.pdf

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

129 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mask laws and anti-religious bigotry [View all] guillaumeb Oct 2017 OP

Why do you keep jumping to a new OP all the time? Cuthbert Allgood Oct 2017 #1

That's just his thing. trotsky Oct 2017 #2

Still waiting for the links about demons. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #22

I gave you links that proved exactly what I claimed, guillaumeb. trotsky Oct 2017 #26

You mistated your previous, unproven claim. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #30

This is for everyone else, not you. trotsky Oct 2017 #35

And so on, in circles and circles Lordquinton Oct 2017 #38

Brilliant? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #39

Yes, we all know you have your own definitions Lordquinton Oct 2017 #43

Right. Based on your responses, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #49

Yep, I clicked the links Lordquinton Oct 2017 #51

What is happening here? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #52

A reminder. trotsky Oct 2017 #57

And did you ever provide the proof in the thread? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #59

Yep, I did. trotsky Oct 2017 #61

Provide that proof, or the link. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #63

He literally did in the post I quoted Lordquinton Oct 2017 #66

And the choir is in perfect harmony. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #71

So... you got nothing Lordquinton Oct 2017 #72

As I said, the choir is in harmony. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #73

Well of course it is. trotsky Oct 2017 #76

Thanks for that confirmation of my statement Lordquinton Oct 2017 #108

Always good when the choir sings in perfect harmony. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #113

Oh I see. trotsky Oct 2017 #69

Your posts reveal much about you. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #74

Yes, they do. As do yours. trotsky Oct 2017 #75

LMFAO trotsky Oct 2017 #45

This is why Tom Lehrer retired Lordquinton Oct 2017 #53

I just like seeing him further drag his own reputation and credibility down into the shitpile. trotsky Oct 2017 #60

Based on the confused responses to several of my posts, apparently not. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #11

NC has anti-mask laws, historically related to KKK activity struggle4progress Oct 2017 #3

True, and the KKK is a recognized hate group. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #7

None of our anti-mask laws mention any group; and 14-12.7 is written in great generality struggle4progress Oct 2017 #25

If the law is written with security in mind, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #29

Here's the actual text of Bill 62 struggle4progress Oct 2017 #33

And from the law: guillaumeb Oct 2017 #34

Wrong. Marois' law was EvilAL Oct 2017 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author EvilAL Oct 2017 #84

Marois' prposed law was discriminatory. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #85

You'd gave a point if EvilAL Oct 2017 #87

And you miss the point with this line of argument. eom guillaumeb Oct 2017 #89

I missed the point about marois? EvilAL Oct 2017 #99

"institutions have the right to enforce certain rules" trotsky Oct 2017 #4

Oopsie... MineralMan Oct 2017 #5

Except an entire country is not a private institution. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #8

Quebec isn't a country. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #13

Quebec is a province with aspirations to be a country. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #15

Zut Alors! MineralMan Oct 2017 #20

Read the PQ platform. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #21

What is that to me? MineralMan Oct 2017 #23

Sarah Palin can see Canada from Minnesota. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #24

You didn't say it had to be a private institution. trotsky Oct 2017 #27

Reread the original post. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #31

Here it is for everyone to read. trotsky Oct 2017 #36

A mosque is a private institution. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #41

"institutions have the right to enforce certain rules." trotsky Oct 2017 #44

Not amending, simply clarifying for those who are obviously confused guillaumeb Oct 2017 #48

Yes, you must have been obviously confused since you didn't distinguish between them. trotsky Oct 2017 #55

So you are saying that every statement must be vetted by a lawyer? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #56

Jesus fucking Christ. trotsky Oct 2017 #58

A nice side step. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #62

wait, so rather than admit you were wrong about anti-mask laws in the other thread you started this Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #6

can you not follow multiple threads? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #9

JFCOAPS Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #17

I stand by my assertion. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #19

You see, this thread is about this specific angle of the argument Lordquinton Oct 2017 #40

Admit I was wrong? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #10

It's clear what you're doing here. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #12

Out argued? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #14

Our faces are part of our identity. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #16

If it were security related, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #18

Why are you belaboring a point I already made? AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #28

To your final comment: guillaumeb Oct 2017 #32

I understand they'll be voting on it next session. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #37

See #46. An exception is already written in for heritage. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #47

As proposed or amended proposition at the moment. AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #68

So they would remove the crucifixes Lordquinton Oct 2017 #42

The law provides an exception for religious symbols that are part of the heritage guillaumeb Oct 2017 #46

Some form of animism? Lordquinton Oct 2017 #50

Please take another guess. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #54

The heritage of intolerance Lordquinton Oct 2017 #64

Saudi Arabia is an intolerant theocracy. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #65

Again not what I asked Lordquinton Oct 2017 #67

Why do some here fight intolerance with intolerance? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #70

"Why do some here fight intolerance with intolerance?" trotsky Oct 2017 #77

And should we also be intolerant if a group of athists demonstrates intolerance? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #78

LMFAO trotsky Oct 2017 #79

I was not the one arguing that this particular intolerance was acceptable. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #80

That's not an answer to my question, of course. trotsky Oct 2017 #81

Then you should ask the question to which you wish an answer. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #82

HAHAHAHAHA trotsky Oct 2017 #98

Is this an admittance that you could not clarify your question? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #102

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH trotsky Oct 2017 #125

Arguing about whether we should tolerate Nazis Lordquinton Oct 2017 #111

Defend Nazis? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #114

I did read it Lordquinton Oct 2017 #118

And shall you answer the question posted to you? Lordquinton Oct 2017 #110

Your framing is ridiculous, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #115

You're the only one reframing Lordquinton Oct 2017 #119

You'd be the one to answer that Lordquinton Oct 2017 #109

That question has been asked and answered many times. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #116

bigotry.. lol EvilAL Oct 2017 #86

It is legalized discrimination, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #88

if they are allowed to build a church there EvilAL Oct 2017 #90

Okay. I concede that you have convinced yourself. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #91

No. show me where the rules EvilAL Oct 2017 #94

I already did, on the current law and in this case. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #96

I guess I must have missed it. EvilAL Oct 2017 #97

Now, I found an error in my post about the synagogue. EvilAL Oct 2017 #103

I agree. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #105

Well, when Marois was asked about the cross EvilAL Oct 2017 #106

Where does it say in Islam that women have to cover their faces? EvilAL Oct 2017 #92

You have convinced yourself. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #93

let the court decide. EvilAL Oct 2017 #95

Clearly you can't prove that it's actually part of the religion. trotsky Oct 2017 #100

I asked so many times. No use anymore. EvilAL Oct 2017 #101

Bingo. n/t trotsky Oct 2017 #127

It is a source of debate. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #104

There isn't really a debate on there. EvilAL Oct 2017 #107

Some members believe that FGM is a part of their religion Lordquinton Oct 2017 #112

Do all believers hold identical beliefs? eom guillaumeb Oct 2017 #117

Non-sequitur question Lordquinton Oct 2017 #120

Perhaps you should stop veering off topic guillaumeb Oct 2017 #122

Talking to yourself? Lordquinton Oct 2017 #124

the state when it has a compelling interest to do so. Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #121

And that compelling interest should have a clear relationship guillaumeb Oct 2017 #123

Just like it's a "source of debate" as to whether Christianity is pro-slave or anti-slave. trotsky Oct 2017 #126

true and the funny thing is EvilAL Oct 2017 #128

I only skimmed the link but was getting that impression from it. trotsky Oct 2017 #129