IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Maybe so but you are just ignorant and don't know the facts of the case. Again, this law does nothing new and has no punishment for breaking it. But ignorance is bliss especially when it suits your point of view.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Artists, businesses boycott North Carolina over anti-LGBT law (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
I admit I didn't read the entire thread. So what are the relevant facts of the case?
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Buzzbait
Footballguy
So if the law did stipulate some kind of punishment would it then be OK? Serious question because the response doesn't seem to have issue with the intent (i.e. use the restroom that aligns with birth sex) but rather the application and lack of punishment.
I don't know which "law" he is referring to, but the original ordinance allowed you to call the police if you "thought/felt" someone was using the wrong bathroom for the wrong reasons. It also prohibited things like women's only classes.
Capella
Footballguy
The law was literally written to prevent cities in the state from prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In Charlotte, a business had been prohibited from not serving somebody because they were gay. HB2 trumped that and made that law void.
But yes, liberals are the hateful ones.
Also, it's ok to educate yourself on a topic before sounding off. The bathroom bill part was the little cherry on top of the discrimination sundae.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
Also worth pointing out that within the city of Charlotte, there wasn't much controversy about the anti-discrimination law the city passed. Around two-thirds of the citizens were for it and there wasn't much organized resistance from business owners. The city passed a law that the people in the city wanted.
The state legislature called itself into session and wrote, debated, and passed HB2 in one night. There wasn't a big public outcry to have the state do something about it, and the state didn't even let the law sit on the floor for a full day to give the public a chance to react to it while it was being discussed. They didn't like a law a city passed and overwrote it because they felt like it.
simey
Footballguy
Prohibiting transgenders from using the bathroom under the gender they identify with was just a portion of HB2.The bill's part that wanted to prohibit people from suing in state court for employment discrimination included sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, age, handicap, etc. They basically took away people's protection. That part of the law was repealed, but instead of having 3 years to file a claim or complaint, you now have one year.
The bill also stuck a knife in minimum wage. The bill allows the state to have control over minimum wage rates so the local governments can't set their own. $7.25 is not a living wage. It is poverty.
The backlash from the bill has now cost North Carolina over $395 million.
The HB2 Law has the bigot smell all over it, and it stinks. Their stench is all over this state politically. HB2 was passed at lightning speed (and us taxpayers were billed for it) when Charlotte passed their bathroom ordinance trying to protect transgenders (and they do need protecting), and then you have North Carolina General Assembly wanting to block blacks from voting this election by trying to enforce voter ID. Federal courts shot it down and exposed it for what it was. This is what the courts found:
McCrory’s HB2 stance begs the question
By Taylor Batten
Editorial Page Editor
With Hurricane HB2 blowing North Carolina’s doors off, Gov. Pat McCrory took questions in Charlotte last week – from himself.
McCrory’s staff planted questions at a lunch event in SouthPark on Thursday with the crowd under the impression that they were coming from the media or the audience. The moderator, a volunteer from the lunch audience, introduced three questions by saying they were from the Charlotte Observer.
He apologized to me afterward, saying it was his understanding all the questions on one of his sheets were from the Observer. In fact, they were from the governor’s own staff, an event organizer said.
Speakers at Hood Hargett Breakfast Club events routinely take questions from the floor. McCrory required that all questions be submitted in advance in writing.
When the moderator asked how to get started, McCrory said, “Anything you like. No filter here.” Sure, who needs a filter when you posed the questions yourself?
When I tried to ask McCrory a question, the filter went up. “We’ve got three Observer questions answered already. I think you guys dominate the news enough.”
Of course, those weren’t Observer questions. They were softballs from his staff about what he wanted to do with his next term; how he wanted to reduce the state’s rape kit backlog; and how the state crime lab performed under McCrory’s opponent, Roy Cooper.
When the event was over, McCrory did not meet with the throng of reporters who were there. He ducked out a side door and down a hall that led to a back exit. I followed him to try to ask him about HB2, but his staff blocked me.
Ricky Diaz, a campaign spokesman, on Friday acknowledged the campaign provided questions for the governor, but said “we were asked to in order to keep the conversation format going.”
Jenn Snyder, executive director of the Hood Hargett Breakfast Club, said that’s not true. She said she had expected the governor to take live questions from the audience but the campaign insisted on this other format and wanted to include questions of their own along with ones from the audience. All the questions were portrayed as coming from the audience and the Observer, and the crowd was never told that many of them actually came from McCrory’s campaign.
Poor Pat. He finds himself in the middle of a firestorm of his own making and doesn’t know how to get out of it. He’s so unsure of himself that he plants his own questions and runs from the media at a crucial time.
McCrory called me an hour after the lunch. In that conversation and at the event, it seemed McCrory is tortured by HB2 and its fallout. He aggressively defends it, but also tiptoes toward a conciliatory stance.
For example, he told me, “I strongly disagree with anyone being fired or not hired based on sexual orientation.” But he said it’s Congress’s job, not North Carolina’s or Charlotte’s, to make that law.
He told me Congress should pass a civil rights law that extends protections to gays. Pressed on whether he was saying gays do deserve legal protection, McCrory took a half-step back: “I wish the federal government would have this discussion.”
McCrory talks almost exclusively about transgender use of bathrooms and locker rooms when he defends HB2. But the law went much further than bathrooms, forbidding local governments from passing non-discrimination ordinances.
I asked McCrory why he didn’t insist on a bill that dealt with only bathrooms.
“Our lawyers at the time didn’t know a way to separate it,” he said.
Sounds like he needs new lawyers. But in reality, this isn’t a legal question. It’s one of leadership. McCrory isn’t showing any, and it’s sinking his reelection campaign, and the state.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article102315532.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article102315532.html#storylink=cpy
By Taylor Batten
Editorial Page Editor
With Hurricane HB2 blowing North Carolina’s doors off, Gov. Pat McCrory took questions in Charlotte last week – from himself.
McCrory’s staff planted questions at a lunch event in SouthPark on Thursday with the crowd under the impression that they were coming from the media or the audience. The moderator, a volunteer from the lunch audience, introduced three questions by saying they were from the Charlotte Observer.
He apologized to me afterward, saying it was his understanding all the questions on one of his sheets were from the Observer. In fact, they were from the governor’s own staff, an event organizer said.
Speakers at Hood Hargett Breakfast Club events routinely take questions from the floor. McCrory required that all questions be submitted in advance in writing.
When the moderator asked how to get started, McCrory said, “Anything you like. No filter here.” Sure, who needs a filter when you posed the questions yourself?
When I tried to ask McCrory a question, the filter went up. “We’ve got three Observer questions answered already. I think you guys dominate the news enough.”
Of course, those weren’t Observer questions. They were softballs from his staff about what he wanted to do with his next term; how he wanted to reduce the state’s rape kit backlog; and how the state crime lab performed under McCrory’s opponent, Roy Cooper.
When the event was over, McCrory did not meet with the throng of reporters who were there. He ducked out a side door and down a hall that led to a back exit. I followed him to try to ask him about HB2, but his staff blocked me.
Ricky Diaz, a campaign spokesman, on Friday acknowledged the campaign provided questions for the governor, but said “we were asked to in order to keep the conversation format going.”
Jenn Snyder, executive director of the Hood Hargett Breakfast Club, said that’s not true. She said she had expected the governor to take live questions from the audience but the campaign insisted on this other format and wanted to include questions of their own along with ones from the audience. All the questions were portrayed as coming from the audience and the Observer, and the crowd was never told that many of them actually came from McCrory’s campaign.
Poor Pat. He finds himself in the middle of a firestorm of his own making and doesn’t know how to get out of it. He’s so unsure of himself that he plants his own questions and runs from the media at a crucial time.
McCrory called me an hour after the lunch. In that conversation and at the event, it seemed McCrory is tortured by HB2 and its fallout. He aggressively defends it, but also tiptoes toward a conciliatory stance.
For example, he told me, “I strongly disagree with anyone being fired or not hired based on sexual orientation.” But he said it’s Congress’s job, not North Carolina’s or Charlotte’s, to make that law.
He told me Congress should pass a civil rights law that extends protections to gays. Pressed on whether he was saying gays do deserve legal protection, McCrory took a half-step back: “I wish the federal government would have this discussion.”
McCrory talks almost exclusively about transgender use of bathrooms and locker rooms when he defends HB2. But the law went much further than bathrooms, forbidding local governments from passing non-discrimination ordinances.
I asked McCrory why he didn’t insist on a bill that dealt with only bathrooms.
“Our lawyers at the time didn’t know a way to separate it,” he said.
Sounds like he needs new lawyers. But in reality, this isn’t a legal question. It’s one of leadership. McCrory isn’t showing any, and it’s sinking his reelection campaign, and the state.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article102315532.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article102315532.html#storylink=cpy
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
This is working it's way through federal courts as we speak. It doesn't matter whether I agree with the bill or not as there is nothing in it that wasn't covered under the NC laws already. 49 other states were smart enough not to take a stance and create a problem where one doesn't exist. This was a political retaliation to legislation that Charlotte passed and nothing more. The legislation that Charlotte passed was the same a 50+ other large cities that hold conventions, only NC was dumb enough to fight it while it was being addressed in federal court.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/cities-and-counties-with-non-discrimination-ordinances-that-include-gender
I can find any articles on polling in Charlotte. Can you point me that direction?
So the discrimination part of the law was removed except reducing the time to file a complaint from 3 years to 1 year? So the backlash from the NCAA is based on minimum wage and the bathroom thing?
The bill's part that wanted to prohibit people from suing in state court for employment discrimination included sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, age, handicap, etc. They basically took away people's protection. That part of the law was repealed, but instead of having 3 years to file a claim or complaint, you now have one year.
The bill also stuck a knife in minimum wage. The bill allows the state to have control over minimum wage rates so the local governments can't set their own. $7.25 is not a living wage. It is poverty.
The backlash from the bill has now cost North Carolina over $395 million.
The HB2 Law has the bigot smell all over it, and it stinks. Their stench is all over this state politically. HB2 was passed at lightning speed (and us taxpayers were billed for it) when Charlotte passed their bathroom ordinance trying to protect transgenders (and they do need protecting), and then you have North Carolina General Assembly wanting to block blacks from voting this election by trying to enforce voter ID. Federal courts shot it down and exposed it for what it was. This is what the courts found:
By the way, the ordinance prohibited female only classes and clubs. It also didn't provide any real protection for transgenders as a business owner could legal call the police if the thought some was using the wrong bathroom for the wrong reason. The ordinance needed to be overturned.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
18 Questions, 18 Answers: The real facts behind House Bill 2
By Rick Glazier, Executive Director of the NC Justice Center
For the past week politicians across North Carolina have defended House Bill 2, claiming that the real facts behind the law have been misconstrued or misinterpreted by the public.
My 18 questions and answers on HB 2 deal with the real bill that passed – not the one Governor McCrory wishes had passed. Eighteen is an important number in my religion – it is the number we use that stands for the “joy of life.”
How ironic.
1. Does HB 2 eliminate any state law claim for wrongful termination of an employee on the basis of the color of a person's skin?
Yes. The last sentence of section § 143-422.3 does so explicitly. And Representative Bishop was forced to admit that in committee and on the floor of the House. Now only Mississippi and North Carolina provide no state law remedy for any type of employment discrimination.
2. Does HB 2 eliminate any state law claim for discrimination in the workplace on the basis of national origin or ethnicity?
Yes.
3. Does HB 2 eliminate the existing state law remedy that now protects (but no longer will) a Christian who has been terminated from their job on the basis of religion?
Yes. § 143-422.2 specifically states: “The regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law.”
It’s an interesting provision because the next provision states, “This article does not create and shall not be construed to create or support a statutory or common-law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed above.”
So, essentially, the last sentence renders the first sentence impotent. A right you cannot enforce is not a right – it is a platitude. In this case we effectively recognize the man in uniform, but then fail so much as to give him a passing salute.
4. Does HB 2 eliminate all existing state law remedies for women from being demoted, transferred, or terminated from their job because of their sex?
Yes.
5. Before HB 2, did North Carolina provide any protections from discrimination in employment on access to public accommodations for LGBT citizens?
No, and that’s a shame. But local governments could and did – the Charlotte ordinance being the most important example.
6. Has HB 2 overturned all existing local ordinances and protections for LGBT citizens in North Carolina and banned any communities from ever enacting any such protections again?
Yes. Sections § 143-222.3 and 222.1 expressly do just that.
7. Did HB 2 overturn and eliminate all existing local authority to enact minimum wage standards for public-sector contractors in their community?
Yes. Section § 2.1 of the bill expressly states so.
8. Did HB 2 overturn and eliminate all existing local ordinances and any ability to enact family leave policies, child welfare protections, limits on the number of consecutive hours an employee may be required to work without a break or health insurance standards for any contractors in their community?
Yes. And the statute specifically says that.
9. Does HB 2 now require school systems to enact regulations on single-sex, multiple-occupancy bathrooms and changing facilities in direct violation of the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights guidance?
Yes – which is precisely why the Republican Governor of South Dakota vetoed similar legislation in his state just weeks ago.
10. Does HB 2 now require, in multiple-occupancy public bathrooms, that transgendered males, who were born female but now exhibit fully male characteristics and who have not or cannot change their birth certificate, use female restrooms?
Yes – and in doing seems to be in clear violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
11. Was there ever any credible evidence to support the theory that the Charlotte ordinance created a security risk to any persons in bathrooms or locker rooms?
No, and not a single credible incident or report exists from the 17 states or over 200 communities that have enacted and implemented the exact same ordinance as Charlotte. And this includes the following liberal bastions of policy in the United States: Oklahoma City, Boise, Dallas, Orlando, Indianapolis, Lexington, El Paso, Myrtle Beach, Kansas City, and Lawrence, Kansas, just to name a few.
12. Was the process used to create the Charlotte ordinance less or more open to public comment and consideration than the legislative process used to create HB 2?
On the one hand, Charlotte took over a year to develop their ordinance; had a record of 214 pages handed to their council members, with 28 exhibits attached; sent it to the council weeks before the vote; had multiple hours of public comment and public notice weeks before the public hearing; and made a draft available to everybody who wanted to review the law.
On the other hand, House Bill 2 was developed in secret by a few folks; it was made public the morning of the vote; the committee hearing was announced on the floor of the House to follow 10 minutes later in the House; there was 45 minutes of public comment – and most of the people who signed up could not speak; the bill was sent to the floor immediately after with no public vetting; the Senate proceeded within hours; and it was signed by Governor McCrory that night.
Twelve hours from origination to ratification – a record. If you had no dog in this fight, which process would you say – or more importantly, which process do you think the people would say – is fairer and represents a better way to govern?
13. Was the Charlotte ordinance unconstitutional or exceptional in nature and degree?
No. North Carolina General Statute § 160A-174, as enhanced by § 160A-4, made clear Charlotte’s authority to do exactly what it said, and multiple courts in many other states have long held – and by that I mean for the last 50 years – that passing nondiscrimination ordinances easily falls within the police power of municipalities. That was the legal opinion handed out by the Charlotte lawyers to the Charlotte City Council and municipal officials.
14. Do the LGBT provisions in HB 2 violate the constitution of the United States?
Yes. And we’ll find out very soon from the ACLU lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina as that case winds its way through the federal courts.
15. Have similar and indeed less egregious laws been recently vetoed in other states by other governors?
Yes, in South Dakota – and, not for nothing, just yesterday by the Republican Governor of Georgia, who did the same thing. And both the Republican Governor of South Dakota and the Republican Governor of Georgia showed great intelligence and courage in their veto messages. I’ll leave it to the public to decide whether that same set of traits existed in North Carolina last week.
16. Why does North Carolina need any state law protecting from employment discrimination when aggrieved workers can simply sue under federal law, particularly Title VII?
The easiest answer without getting into the weeds is this: a plaintiff can sue in federal court for sex or race discrimination in employment in 50 states. But 48 of the states thought it was also important to create a public policy and a right to sue for violation of that policy in their states as a matter of moral, social, and economic justice and to signal to their citizens the importance of tolerance and diversity, and nondiscrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, and religion in their states. You would think the importance of that law under North Carolina policy would be obvious to any public official and any citizen of this state in the year 2016.
17. Does the bill allow bullying of transgendered children specifically or LGBT children generally in school?
No, not explicitly. But think of the signals it sends to both the oppressed and the oppressor. Remember that the people who brought you HB2 are the same people who fought the School Violence Protection Act and its anti-bullying provisions several years ago solely because it also protected gay children and they voted against that vote bill unanimously on a party line vote.
18. What is the relationship between the provisions of HB 2 eliminating any state law protections for race and sex discrimination in the workplace in North Carolina and the Charlotte ordinance?
None.
By Rick Glazier, Executive Director of the NC Justice Center
For the past week politicians across North Carolina have defended House Bill 2, claiming that the real facts behind the law have been misconstrued or misinterpreted by the public.
My 18 questions and answers on HB 2 deal with the real bill that passed – not the one Governor McCrory wishes had passed. Eighteen is an important number in my religion – it is the number we use that stands for the “joy of life.”
How ironic.
1. Does HB 2 eliminate any state law claim for wrongful termination of an employee on the basis of the color of a person's skin?
Yes. The last sentence of section § 143-422.3 does so explicitly. And Representative Bishop was forced to admit that in committee and on the floor of the House. Now only Mississippi and North Carolina provide no state law remedy for any type of employment discrimination.
2. Does HB 2 eliminate any state law claim for discrimination in the workplace on the basis of national origin or ethnicity?
Yes.
3. Does HB 2 eliminate the existing state law remedy that now protects (but no longer will) a Christian who has been terminated from their job on the basis of religion?
Yes. § 143-422.2 specifically states: “The regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law.”
It’s an interesting provision because the next provision states, “This article does not create and shall not be construed to create or support a statutory or common-law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed above.”
So, essentially, the last sentence renders the first sentence impotent. A right you cannot enforce is not a right – it is a platitude. In this case we effectively recognize the man in uniform, but then fail so much as to give him a passing salute.
4. Does HB 2 eliminate all existing state law remedies for women from being demoted, transferred, or terminated from their job because of their sex?
Yes.
5. Before HB 2, did North Carolina provide any protections from discrimination in employment on access to public accommodations for LGBT citizens?
No, and that’s a shame. But local governments could and did – the Charlotte ordinance being the most important example.
6. Has HB 2 overturned all existing local ordinances and protections for LGBT citizens in North Carolina and banned any communities from ever enacting any such protections again?
Yes. Sections § 143-222.3 and 222.1 expressly do just that.
7. Did HB 2 overturn and eliminate all existing local authority to enact minimum wage standards for public-sector contractors in their community?
Yes. Section § 2.1 of the bill expressly states so.
8. Did HB 2 overturn and eliminate all existing local ordinances and any ability to enact family leave policies, child welfare protections, limits on the number of consecutive hours an employee may be required to work without a break or health insurance standards for any contractors in their community?
Yes. And the statute specifically says that.
9. Does HB 2 now require school systems to enact regulations on single-sex, multiple-occupancy bathrooms and changing facilities in direct violation of the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights guidance?
Yes – which is precisely why the Republican Governor of South Dakota vetoed similar legislation in his state just weeks ago.
10. Does HB 2 now require, in multiple-occupancy public bathrooms, that transgendered males, who were born female but now exhibit fully male characteristics and who have not or cannot change their birth certificate, use female restrooms?
Yes – and in doing seems to be in clear violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
11. Was there ever any credible evidence to support the theory that the Charlotte ordinance created a security risk to any persons in bathrooms or locker rooms?
No, and not a single credible incident or report exists from the 17 states or over 200 communities that have enacted and implemented the exact same ordinance as Charlotte. And this includes the following liberal bastions of policy in the United States: Oklahoma City, Boise, Dallas, Orlando, Indianapolis, Lexington, El Paso, Myrtle Beach, Kansas City, and Lawrence, Kansas, just to name a few.
12. Was the process used to create the Charlotte ordinance less or more open to public comment and consideration than the legislative process used to create HB 2?
On the one hand, Charlotte took over a year to develop their ordinance; had a record of 214 pages handed to their council members, with 28 exhibits attached; sent it to the council weeks before the vote; had multiple hours of public comment and public notice weeks before the public hearing; and made a draft available to everybody who wanted to review the law.
On the other hand, House Bill 2 was developed in secret by a few folks; it was made public the morning of the vote; the committee hearing was announced on the floor of the House to follow 10 minutes later in the House; there was 45 minutes of public comment – and most of the people who signed up could not speak; the bill was sent to the floor immediately after with no public vetting; the Senate proceeded within hours; and it was signed by Governor McCrory that night.
Twelve hours from origination to ratification – a record. If you had no dog in this fight, which process would you say – or more importantly, which process do you think the people would say – is fairer and represents a better way to govern?
13. Was the Charlotte ordinance unconstitutional or exceptional in nature and degree?
No. North Carolina General Statute § 160A-174, as enhanced by § 160A-4, made clear Charlotte’s authority to do exactly what it said, and multiple courts in many other states have long held – and by that I mean for the last 50 years – that passing nondiscrimination ordinances easily falls within the police power of municipalities. That was the legal opinion handed out by the Charlotte lawyers to the Charlotte City Council and municipal officials.
14. Do the LGBT provisions in HB 2 violate the constitution of the United States?
Yes. And we’ll find out very soon from the ACLU lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina as that case winds its way through the federal courts.
15. Have similar and indeed less egregious laws been recently vetoed in other states by other governors?
Yes, in South Dakota – and, not for nothing, just yesterday by the Republican Governor of Georgia, who did the same thing. And both the Republican Governor of South Dakota and the Republican Governor of Georgia showed great intelligence and courage in their veto messages. I’ll leave it to the public to decide whether that same set of traits existed in North Carolina last week.
16. Why does North Carolina need any state law protecting from employment discrimination when aggrieved workers can simply sue under federal law, particularly Title VII?
The easiest answer without getting into the weeds is this: a plaintiff can sue in federal court for sex or race discrimination in employment in 50 states. But 48 of the states thought it was also important to create a public policy and a right to sue for violation of that policy in their states as a matter of moral, social, and economic justice and to signal to their citizens the importance of tolerance and diversity, and nondiscrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, and religion in their states. You would think the importance of that law under North Carolina policy would be obvious to any public official and any citizen of this state in the year 2016.
17. Does the bill allow bullying of transgendered children specifically or LGBT children generally in school?
No, not explicitly. But think of the signals it sends to both the oppressed and the oppressor. Remember that the people who brought you HB2 are the same people who fought the School Violence Protection Act and its anti-bullying provisions several years ago solely because it also protected gay children and they voted against that vote bill unanimously on a party line vote.
18. What is the relationship between the provisions of HB 2 eliminating any state law protections for race and sex discrimination in the workplace in North Carolina and the Charlotte ordinance?
None.
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
I was a number I remembered cited on TV when all this stuff went down.
How far off do you think that number is?
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/story/31538475/poll-25-say-nc-lawmakers-should-override-non-discrimination-ordinance
-
- http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/stor...should-override-non-discrimination-ordinance#
- http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/stor...should-override-non-discrimination-ordinance#
- http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/stor...should-override-non-discrimination-ordinance#
- http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/stor...should-override-non-discrimination-ordinance#
- http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/stor...should-override-non-discrimination-ordinance#
- http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/stor...should-override-non-discrimination-ordinance#
- 0
Poll: 25% say lawmakers should override non-discrimination ordinance
Posted: Mar 22, 2016 1:47 PM EST Updated: Mar 22, 2016 4:07 PM EST
By WBTV Web Staff
Connect
http://wbtv.images.worldnow.com/images/10160353_G.jpg
CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) -
As members of the North Carolina General Assembly are set to hold a special session on Charlotte's recently passed non-discrimination ordinance, a new poll shows only 25% of North Carolinians think it should be overridden.
The ordinance, passed last month by a 7-4 vote from the Charlotte City Council, broadly defines how businesses must treat gay, lesbian and transgender customers. But as in other cities recently, the debate has focused on bathrooms.
RELATED: Charlotte non-discrimination ordinance passes 7-4
It is currently scheduled to take effect on April 1st.
Since its passage, many high ranking officials in the NC legislature have called for a special session in an effort to stop the measure.
Monday evening, a special session was announced. In a joint statement, Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, President of the Senate, and House Speaker Tim Moore said:
The Senate and House have received the necessary number of signatures from members of the General Assembly to call themselves back into session. In accordance with the State Constitution, we will so call for a special session. We aim to repeal this ordinance before it goes into effect to provide for the privacy and protection of the women and children of our state.
The special session comes roughly a month before the General Assembly is scheduled to convene for its regularly-scheduled short session in 2016.
State Senator Jeff Tarte of Mecklenburg County says what was approved in Charlotte has far reaching legal ramifications.
“You all of the sudden invalidate criminal trespass ordinances. You invalidate indecent exposure ordinances and laws, and you can’t have that,” Tarte said.
RELATED: General Assembly to hold special session on Charlotte transgender ordinance
Lawmakers had to gather the requisite number of signatures to call themselves into a special session after Governor Pat McCrory refused to do so.
According to Public Policy Polling, only 25% of voters in the state think the General Assembly should override Charlotte's ordinance.
Republican governor Pat McCrory, a former Charlotte mayor, has been vocal about his concerns over the ordinance, saying changing restroom rules could "create major public safety issues."
"I think [it] breaks the basic standards, and frankly expectations, of privacy that all individuals - men and women and children alike - would expect in a restroom facility or a locker room facility," McCrory said during a sit-down interview last month. "I think they are creating a lot of potential problems."
RELATED: McCrory: Non-discrimination ordinance breaks 'expectation of privacy' in restroom
Fifty-one percent of North Carolinians think Charlotte should have the right to pass its own laws without interference from on high, according to the PPP.
McCrory says the ordinance has "ramifications beyond the city of Charlotte."
A spokesman for McCrory said the Governor refused to call the special session because he had concerns that lawmakers also plan to address other legislative proposals in addition a measure overturning Charlotte's non-discrimination ordinance.
In a letter to lawmakers sent Monday, McCrory's office said any legislation not related to the Charlotte ordinance should not be taken up until the regularly scheduled short session convenes. Legislative staff estimates it costs roughly $42,000 extra dollars every day the General Assembly is in session.
Meanwhile, Mayor Jennifer Roberts told WBTV she fears repealing the bill may hurt Charlotte.
"We’re focused on being inclusive and welcoming in the way that Charleston, Atlanta, and Orlando and all these other cities that have had this for years," she said. "We want to be competitive."
One of dissenting against votes came from council member Ed Driggs. He said little pushback has come from the opposing side.
“The emails that I got were seven to one against the ordinance from Charlotte, and so I feel that we didn’t look hard enough to find a solution that respected everybody," Driggs said.
Democrats who will have a voice in Raleigh, like State Senator Joel Ford, aren’t expecting the vote to break down party lines.
"It could very well be viewed as a power grab from Raleigh on behalf of the city of Charlotte,” Ford said. “Unfortunately, the city of Charlotte has to take some responsibility for passing ordinance without bringing the General Assembly and the rest of the community along with it.”
Matt Hirschy, Director of Advancement for Equality NC, said he thinks the session is a waste of time and taxpayer money. He said he wasn't surprised to hear about the move by state lawmakers.
"For them to do this is really incredible to me that they're willing to compromise their own values in order to legislate discrimination," said Hirschy.
Copyright 2016 WBTV. All rights reserved.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
How dare you be thorough, Uncle Jerry?!!! We're here to make wildass conjectures and trap others with patented forensic tropes unti our pathetic 'i am here' pronouncements take away some of the pain. And you go & get all facty on us......
I really have no idea. The state is split on HB2 but Charlotte is definitely more liberal that the state and that doesn't address the ordinance. That said, Charlotte has a large black population and hispanic population that often are anti LGBT. I'm personally against both the bill and ordinance as I understand them.
I really wish the feds would step in and craft their own ordinance and HB2 that would apply nationally. If it's a discrimination issue it should be a national law. If their are protections for private businesses to conduct their business as they see fit then they should apply nationally.
cstu
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
HB2 in action
Your gay taste buds aren't even calibrated to taste straight mac and cheese. They're more... cultivated, to enjoy things like cilantro, and penis.
Your gay taste buds aren't even calibrated to taste straight mac and cheese. They're more... cultivated, to enjoy things like cilantro, and penis.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
This 2015 survey shows North Carolina as having 64% supporting LGBT nondiscrimination laws. A bit lower than the 71% national support, but still a landslide majority.
joffer
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
Doesn't look like the thread has been updated.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/north-carolina-bathroom-bill-hb2/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/north-carolina-bathroom-bill-hb2/index.html
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Between this, the court cases dealing with the election process, and the general insanity going on, I think it's clear that North Carolina should be redesignated as a territory and a six month moratorium on statehood imposed as a "cooling off period."
meanjoegreen
Footballguy
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Yeah and as that article makes somewhat clear, to understand the core problem, you need to understand the the state legislature in Raleigh hates Charlotte. With a passion. It's too diverse and liberal for their brand of politics. Of course, it's also the biggest (best) city in the state. There are other states like this with one big/diverse/liberal city, like Georgia with Atlanta, but the state capitol is in that city, so there is some decent representation and understanding of those more liberal issues that the rest of the state disagrees with. But that's not true in NC. So any of these "boycotts" that only hurt Charlotte, like Pay Pal or the NBA All Star game, aren't doing a thing to move the needle. The GOP folks in Raleigh laugh at that because it's mainly hurting Charlotte.
As mentioned, the gerrymandering has made it almost impossible to vote out the GOP. In my county, Union, the two ####### republicans, Tucker and Horn, both ran unopposed. I didn't vote for them of course, but what does it matter? They won by default. So even reasonable Republican citizens who don't like to discriminate against gays can't do a ton about it. We need to re-draw the districts to be reasonable and then wait through a number of election cycles to get reasonable people in power. It sucks.
As mentioned, the gerrymandering has made it almost impossible to vote out the GOP. In my county, Union, the two ####### republicans, Tucker and Horn, both ran unopposed. I didn't vote for them of course, but what does it matter? They won by default. So even reasonable Republican citizens who don't like to discriminate against gays can't do a ton about it. We need to re-draw the districts to be reasonable and then wait through a number of election cycles to get reasonable people in power. It sucks.
the moops
Footballguy
North Carolina can no longer be classified as a full-fledged democracy, according to a bombshell report that likens it to countries like Cuba, Indonesia, and Sierra Leone.
LINK
“If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table – a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world," wrote Andrew Reynolds, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina and co-founder of the EIC, which has measured 213 elections in 153 countries since 2012.
LINK
“If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table – a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world," wrote Andrew Reynolds, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina and co-founder of the EIC, which has measured 213 elections in 153 countries since 2012.
whoknew
Footballguy
Because Texas couldn't let North Carolina out-stupid them, I introduce you to Dan ####### Patrick:
Setting up what looks to be one of the most heated fights for Texas lawmakers in the upcoming legislative session, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst unveiled a long-awaited bill to regulate which bathrooms Texans may use in public buildings.
Senate Bill 6, called the Texas Privacy Act, would prohibit city or county officials from adopting an ordinance that prevents a business from making policies for their bathrooms and dressing rooms. It also would bar local officials from considering these measures when awarding government contracts.
Another part of the proposed legislation would require each locker room or restroom in government buildings, public schools and universities to be designated for use based on biological sex. The bill, which allows schools to make special accommodations, would authorize the attorney general to levy a civil penalty if they do not follow the regulations.
"This is a significant step for the majority of Texans who are alarmed by misguided efforts to shatter our expectations of security and privacy, especially for our children," the Republican from Brenham said. "Senate Bill 6 may have my name on it, but the responsibility falls on all of us to protect citizens and ensure that their personal and private rights are secured."
She said her bill is a response to the Obama administration's letter sent to school districts last year that offered guidance on protecting the rights of transgender students. The letter said districts that do not comply with longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws, which the U.S. Justice and Education departments said extend to transgender students, could risk a revocation of federal funds or a lawsuit.
On Thursday, Kolkhorst said she filed the legislation "not to start a controversy but to end one."
The lieutenant governor, who said he had been working on the bill since September, has argued before that sexual predators may use trans-friendly bathroom policies to target potential victims. However, there never has been a reported case in Texas of someone using a nondiscrimination ordinance to go into a women's restroom and commit an assault.
"The Super Bowl is set for 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 7," Patrick said, responding to concerns from business groups in the state that the bill will stifle economic competitiveness. "We are the 10th largest economy in the world, and that's not going to change."
Patrick and the bill's Senate backers already have a fight on their hands less than a week before the start of the legislative session. A broad coalition of Democrats, pro-LGBT groups and business leaders, including the state's most powerful business lobby, oppose the measure that they argue will negatively impact Texas businesses of all sizes.
If Kolkhort's bill becomes law, the state's economy could take an $8.5 billion hit each year and put at risk at least 185,000 jobs, according to a study commissioned and released by the Texas Association of Business. The study said the measure would devastate Texas' tourism and travel industry, as well as make it harder for businesses to attract workers from other places.
Setting up what looks to be one of the most heated fights for Texas lawmakers in the upcoming legislative session, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst unveiled a long-awaited bill to regulate which bathrooms Texans may use in public buildings.
Senate Bill 6, called the Texas Privacy Act, would prohibit city or county officials from adopting an ordinance that prevents a business from making policies for their bathrooms and dressing rooms. It also would bar local officials from considering these measures when awarding government contracts.
Another part of the proposed legislation would require each locker room or restroom in government buildings, public schools and universities to be designated for use based on biological sex. The bill, which allows schools to make special accommodations, would authorize the attorney general to levy a civil penalty if they do not follow the regulations.
"This is a significant step for the majority of Texans who are alarmed by misguided efforts to shatter our expectations of security and privacy, especially for our children," the Republican from Brenham said. "Senate Bill 6 may have my name on it, but the responsibility falls on all of us to protect citizens and ensure that their personal and private rights are secured."
She said her bill is a response to the Obama administration's letter sent to school districts last year that offered guidance on protecting the rights of transgender students. The letter said districts that do not comply with longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws, which the U.S. Justice and Education departments said extend to transgender students, could risk a revocation of federal funds or a lawsuit.
On Thursday, Kolkhorst said she filed the legislation "not to start a controversy but to end one."
The lieutenant governor, who said he had been working on the bill since September, has argued before that sexual predators may use trans-friendly bathroom policies to target potential victims. However, there never has been a reported case in Texas of someone using a nondiscrimination ordinance to go into a women's restroom and commit an assault.
"The Super Bowl is set for 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 7," Patrick said, responding to concerns from business groups in the state that the bill will stifle economic competitiveness. "We are the 10th largest economy in the world, and that's not going to change."
Patrick and the bill's Senate backers already have a fight on their hands less than a week before the start of the legislative session. A broad coalition of Democrats, pro-LGBT groups and business leaders, including the state's most powerful business lobby, oppose the measure that they argue will negatively impact Texas businesses of all sizes.
If Kolkhort's bill becomes law, the state's economy could take an $8.5 billion hit each year and put at risk at least 185,000 jobs, according to a study commissioned and released by the Texas Association of Business. The study said the measure would devastate Texas' tourism and travel industry, as well as make it harder for businesses to attract workers from other places.
Reg Lllama of Brixton
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
@RokNRole asked in another thread why I think this will hurt the economy. I reckon you only have to read this thread about what a similar bill has done in North Carolina to see how.
But also:
Sports leagues will boycott
Massive out of state investors sent letter to Texas officials explaining they may not invest in future in Texas
Indianapolis having 18% drop in hotel revenue after religious bill
And many artists have said they will have reservations about visiting (as they did in NC). And the influx of California companies/talent is almost certain to slow.
But also:
Sports leagues will boycott
Massive out of state investors sent letter to Texas officials explaining they may not invest in future in Texas
Indianapolis having 18% drop in hotel revenue after religious bill
And many artists have said they will have reservations about visiting (as they did in NC). And the influx of California companies/talent is almost certain to slow.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Great headline: North Carolina Legislators Say They Have a Deal to Repeal Restrictive Bathroom Law
Then we come to find out compromise plan still allows cities to discriminate until 2020.
NCAA better pulls the tourney from the state--and the billions of $ that would come to the state in revenues--until 2022, as they are voting on later today.
Then we come to find out compromise plan still allows cities to discriminate until 2020.
NCAA better pulls the tourney from the state--and the billions of $ that would come to the state in revenues--until 2022, as they are voting on later today.
Reg Lllama of Brixton
Footballguy
What's wrong with this compromise?
Shouldn't it be decided by federal courts?
Should cities be able to ban women's only yoga classes? The original Charlotte bill did that.
Should people be able to call the police and force them to investigate someone using the wrong bathroom only upon their belief (and no evidence)? The original bill did that too.
I'm not defending HB2, but the states need to be able to be able to strike down crap like the Charlotte ordinance. Also, citizens of a state shouldn't have to verse on the local ordinance of every city they travel to to determine which bathroom to use.
Bottom line is that discrimination is a national issue. Rights should be governed under the US Constitution. If discriminatory practice is happening, file a suit and let the SCOTUS decide the law of the land.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
States and municipalities get to make laws about discrimination, too, including laws that are more restrictive than federal laws. If Seattle wants a non-discrimination statute that goes farther that they're willing to go in Savannah or D.C., that's allowable in this country
I'm curious because I haven't seen the particular argument before, how did the Charlotte ordinance make women's yoga illegal? Is this a linguistic issue?
Last edited by a moderator:
You couldn't have establishments open to the public offering women's or men's only services, although I think the YMCA and YWCA got an exclusion.
Regarding the bathroom portion, it was written that you could use the bathroom you were most comfortable in. In theory, I'm most comfortable using the one with the shortest line when I have to pee since have to pee really bad is uncomfortable and so is going to jail for public urination. Actual that made sense even if you didn't agree with it. But then the ordinance went on to say that if you felt like someone was using a bathroom for another reason you could call the police and they would have to investigate. The only requirement was that the complaint had the belief that the person was using a bathroom different than the one they were most comfortable in. In you didn't have that belief and call the police it was a no-no, but if you had the belief even without evidence the police had to act. It was a total cluster.
I know we hate the slippery slope argument, but what's to stop our town that controls the only bridge over a lake (detour would add 30 min) from banning automated cars or trucks?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I think you may be incorrect about the wording of some of that statute. I don't think it defined it as "the bathroom you are most comfortable in." I think it was gender identity and gender expression based
And YMCA/YWCA and similar institutions were exempted, as were private clubs (like, I would imagine, gyms that require membership.) Anything not actually open to the public.
Why would we want to tell a town it can't ban cars or trucks? A bunch of U.S. towns ban cars and trucks.
I think what's to stop it is that the people who live there drive cars and trucks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually they weren't...the ordinance struck this for the books. It's since be re-instated since the city council repealed their ordinance.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
But... it struck the whole provision entirely. So it doesn't need the exception.
And the part that did still exist right before it kept the "not open to the public" exception.
http://charlottenc.gov/NonDiscrimination/Documents/NDO Ordinance 7056.pdf
Define not open to the public. I would assert that a gym advertising on TV or radio is open to the public. Furthermore, I think if I brought you a check for $100K and told you that I was being discriminated against that you could argue either side of this based on the language. A private club is Augusta, not Gold's Gym.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Aren't even bars actually private clubs in Charlotte? And you don't necessarily have to decide between "Augusta" and "Gold's Gym." It can be both. I think their law is just for any business that's not actually open to the general public.
Last edited by a moderator: