What's new
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)

jwb said:
Your argument boils down to "If Springsteen tours, then he *must* tour everywhere".
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, that's not my position at all.  I strongly support The Boss's right to tour wherever he wants.  I also support the right of other folks to do business as they see fit.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes, and our hypothetical baker is effectively going out of the "gay wedding" business.  
Click to expand...
This is getting silly.

If the baker wants to go out of business in NC, fine. No argument from anyone. What they can't do is not serve specific customers (people, not a state) based on how they feel about them. I mean, you're really going to defend discrimination  by calling it "we're getting out of the serving gay people business", 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
No, a wedding is definitely a venue.
Click to expand...
No, it's a description of an event. The catering hall or country club or whatever would be the venue. And I noticed you dropped the "gay" adjective describing the event, which is the reason that the caterer might not be allowed to discriminate in choosing clientele.  Bakers are free to decide not to do weddings at all, unless a relevant government has decided that marrying couples are a protected class.

BTW I am kind of on the line on laws like this.  Sometimes I think it would be better to afford people the freedom to discriminate and then to relentlessly shame them on social media and elsewhere, drive them out of business and force them to confront the consequences of their intolerance for decades to come, instead of having the government bail them out of their own stupidity.  I'm only discussing whether your analogy works here.

 
jwb said:
This is getting silly.

If the baker wants to go out of business in NC, fine. No argument from anyone. What they can't do is not serve specific customers (people, not a state) based on how they feel about them. I mean, you're really going to defend discrimination  by calling it "we're getting out of the serving gay people business", 
Click to expand...
Are you telling me that if the RNC approached Pearl Jam about performing at their convention, and Pearl Jam refused, you would object to that?  Because Pearl Jam is refusing to serve that group of customers based on how they feel about them?  (Pearl Jam operates in Ohio, but not the 2016 Cleveland RNC).

It seems to me that if you are okay with people picking and choosing who they do business with based on their own person values -- and I certainly am -- then it's inconsistent not to extend that right more broadly.  If your position is "It's okay for people to follow their conscience as long as their beliefs are the same as mine," that's not really a very robust principle.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
BTW I am kind of on the line on laws like this.  Sometimes I think it would be better to afford people the freedom to discriminate and then to relentlessly shame them on social media and elsewhere, drive them out of business and force them to confront the consequences of their intolerance for decades to come, instead of having the government bail them out of their own stupidity.  
Click to expand...
This would probably work today.

 
Chemical X said:
its not just the bathroom part, in a same day special session sponsored by the religious nuts here, when it is legal to discriminate, We have an issue, as hb2 does not offer protections to the lgbt community.  hb2 also disallows discrim suits of any kind at the state level And cities can not set their own min wage.

i laugh when its ok that businesses can now set their own policies, so to speak, so they can hang a sign that says, no service to gays.....yet when entertainers oppose And set their own policies, while others protest, they are seemingly the bad guys.
Click to expand...
Didn't he issue an executive order changing the discrimination lawsuit at state level part? He didn't change the bathroom or minimum wage part. Regardless, hb2 is an embarrassment to the state of NC, and McCrory and many of the lawmakers need to go.

 
meanjoegreen said:
Didn't he issue an executive order changing the discrimination lawsuit at state level part? He didn't change the bathroom or minimum wage part. Regardless, hb2 is an embarrassment to the state of NC, and McCrory and many of the lawmakers need to go.
Click to expand...
admittedly, I am not a news guy and not following this closely, its on everywhere down here............but I think he changed the part where you can now file suit in state court again for discrimination. 

 
Chemical X said:
meanjoegreen said:
Didn't he issue an executive order changing the discrimination lawsuit at state level part? He didn't change the bathroom or minimum wage part. Regardless, hb2 is an embarrassment to the state of NC, and McCrory and many of the lawmakers need to go.
Click to expand...
admittedly, I am not a news guy and not following this closely, its on everywhere down here............but I think he changed the part where you can now file suit in state court again for discrimination. 
Click to expand...
Right, he changed the state level part. That isn't good enough at all. The whole bill needs to be repealed.  Another kick in the nuts is us taxpayers get charged the $42,000 it cost for them to rush through hatebill2. I hope McCrory, Berger, Moore, etc. do not get re-elected.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Are you telling me that if the RNC approached Pearl Jam about performing at their convention, and Pearl Jam refused, you would object to that?  Because Pearl Jam is refusing to serve that group of customers based on how they feel about them?  (Pearl Jam operates in Ohio, but not the 2016 Cleveland RNC).

It seems to me that if you are okay with people picking and choosing who they do business with based on their own person values -- and I certainly am -- then it's inconsistent not to extend that right more broadly.  If your position is "It's okay for people to follow their conscience as long as their beliefs are the same as mine," that's not really a very robust principle.  
Click to expand...
If Pearl Jam said "no republicans allowed at our concert", that would be a problem. 

ETA: You really don't see a difference between Pearl Jam pulling out of the state, and them still playing in the state but saying "no XYZ people allowed in"? 

We're kinda done here - you're basically all for "whites only" (and similar). Ok. (I do understand that you're more or less arguing the point and not endorsing racism, but your argument is essentially "if they can pull out of the concert, then we have to let anyone else do what they want, including hanging "no gays allowed" signs", and if that's your point, then there's really nowhere else to go.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay guys, headed to some ladies room across Raleigh.  Will report back in an hour or so?  X, care to join me.  

For the record, there has never been a time I was at a concert at Walnut Creek and not seen women in the men's room.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
Okay guys, headed to some ladies room across Raleigh.  Will report back in an hour or so?  X, care to join me.  

For the record, there has never been a time I was at a concert at Walnut Creek and not seen women in the men's room.
Click to expand...
Probably normal/real women...Not those men camouflaged as women...

 
jonessed said:
Seems like using the bathroom assigned to your sex shouldn't really be that controversial.

Crazy times.
Click to expand...
I know, right?  This person should obviously be using the women's room.  I can't see any reason that might be controversial, and clearly it's important that the government takes whatever steps necessary to ensure that he does.

In fact let's look at the litany of horrible things that have already happened that would have been prevented with laws like this. I've listed them here so everyone can see for themselves why these laws are so important:

 
jonessed said:
Seems like using the bathroom assigned to your sex shouldn't really be that controversial.

Crazy times.
Click to expand...
These laws really aren't about the bathroom, though. That's just so it can be portrayed as "all we're doing is keeping perverts away from our daughters". If the bathroom part was the only part of the law, this wouldn't get the attention it did. it's everything else attached to it that's the real problem (and the real agenda behind them, imho).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump's takes from the TODAY show this morning:

“North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they’re paying a big price. There’s a lot of problems. Leave it the way it is. What they’re going through with all the business that’s leaving, all of the strife — and this is on both sides. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic — I mean, the economic punishment that they’re taking.”

 
MattFancy said:
Trump's takes from the TODAY show this morning:

“North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they’re paying a big price. There’s a lot of problems. Leave it the way it is. What they’re going through with all the business that’s leaving, all of the strife — and this is on both sides. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic — I mean, the economic punishment that they’re taking.”
Click to expand...
sounds like something a 97 yr old granpa simpson might babble, like the fighting hellfish or the time the Kaiser stole the word twenty.

 
Chemical X said:
sounds like something a 97 yr old granpa simpson might babble, like the fighting hellfish or the time the Kaiser stole the word twenty.
Click to expand...
It is important to remember that we did not sit idly by an let the Kaiser keep the word "twenty" we kicked his ###, took back the word "twenty", melted down all of their pointy helmets to use as bumpers on Buicks, and mandated that it would be their eternal job to come up with words like fahrvegnugen (the act of texting pics of your bent **** to Jenn Sturger) and schdenfreude (shortchanging persons practicing Freudian psychology when they come into Starbucks and don't use Applepay to pay).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is starting to get interesting. North Carilina is suing the federal government, claiming that transgenders are not protected from discrimination. 

North Carolina doubling down. 

 
What's the argument that sex-based bathrooms violate civil rights laws based on sex?  I've never quite understood that.

 
jonessed said:
What's the argument that sex-based bathrooms violate civil rights laws based on sex?  I've never quite understood that.
Click to expand...
The bathroom piece of the bill gets all of the attention but here are a few things that violate civil rights laws that were passed in the bill.

·         eliminates any state law claim for wrongful termination of an employee on the basis of the color of a person's skin

·         eliminates any state law claim for discrimination in the workplace on the basis of national origin or ethnicity

·         eliminates the existing state law that protects (but no longer will) a person who has been terminated from their job on the basis of religion

·         eliminates all existing state law remedies for women from being demoted, transferred, or terminated from their job because of their sex

·         overturned all existing local ordinances and protections for LGBT citizens in North Carolina and banned any communities from ever enacting any such protections again

 
Yenrub said:
The bathroom piece of the bill gets all of the attention but here are a few things that violate civil rights laws that were passed in the bill.

·         eliminates any state law claim for wrongful termination of an employee on the basis of the color of a person's skin

·         eliminates any state law claim for discrimination in the workplace on the basis of national origin or ethnicity

·         eliminates the existing state law that protects (but no longer will) a person who has been terminated from their job on the basis of religion

·         eliminates all existing state law remedies for women from being demoted, transferred, or terminated from their job because of their sex

·         overturned all existing local ordinances and protections for LGBT citizens in North Carolina and banned any communities from ever enacting any such protections again
Click to expand...
I was specifically asking about the bathroom portion.  How does sex-based bathrooms violate Title IX.  What's the argument there?

What part of the law legalizes racial discrimination?  I haven't seen that pointed out anywhere.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You cannot divorce the "bathroom piece" of HB2 from all the other ugly language contained in it.  It's nothing but using a manufactured controversy to pass discriminatory racist, sexist legislation under the guise of "protecting" our children! This is ridiculous!

 
Mohawk said:
You cannot divorce the "bathroom piece" of HB2 from all the other ugly language contained in it.  It's nothing but using a manufactured controversy to pass discriminatory racist, sexist legislation under the guise of "protecting" our children! This is ridiculous!
Click to expand...
OK, but that really doesn't answer either question.

 
Jackstraw said:
Yes and diner owners in the sixties were effectively going out of the serving black customers at the counter business. 
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree.  I think that should be legal.  People shouldn't be forced by the state to do business with folks they'd prefer not to.  If you understand the Pearl Jam thing, it's not too difficult to understand that the same logic applies here, admittedly leading you to a far less popular outcome.  

 
Not trying to answer your question.  Just letting you know that the answer is irrelevant.  This legislation must go.

 
In a properly functioning society, with thoughtful, reasonable and educated statesmen governing the land and the people, with a balanced focus on that which benefits the nation versus what benefits individual groups, the tail should never wag the dog.

When a class/group/however you want to define it develops itself into a significant percentage of the population, there is a mechanism in place for them to acquire rights, protections and privileges, and that's proper, well and good. There's no logical fact-based reason why former slaves (primarily blacks) should not have been given rights protections and privileges following the abolition of slavery. As much a matter of it just being moral 'the right thing to do', a significant contributing factor in the equation had to be just how large a percentage of society they comprised. Society could not function with that high a percentage of it's members not being given equal rights.The same goes with homosexuals/bisexuals. Eventually they comprised a significant enough percentage of the population to gain access to rights, protections and privileges under the law.

Transgendered people are a very, very, very small minority in our current society...and there's plenty of research on both sides, indicating that it might be physiological issue, or that it might be a mental disorder, that plenty of reasonable people consider the jury still out on exactly what they are.

Due to the disproportionately small membership of the group, and the incomplete nature of the information about them, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to maintain the status quo until such time as the group grows larger, or more information-based conclusions can be drawn about them.

Either that, or we go back to having unisex, single use restrooms, and everyone gets to wait in line for each individual to do their business in private.
 
 

 
nittanylion said:
Due to the disproportionately small membership of the group, and the incomplete nature of the information about them, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to maintain the status quo until such time as the group grows larger, or more information-based conclusions can be drawn about them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but isn't the status quo that people who present as women generally use the women's restroom, regardless of their biological sex?  I assume that's what's been happening all along.  How would anybody even know the biological sex of the person in the next stall?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yeah, but isn't the status quo that people who present as women generally use the women's restroom, regardless of their biological sex?  I assume that's what's been happening all along.  How would anybody even know the biological sex of the person in the next stall?
Click to expand...
I think how it's applied in schools makes it much more complex and that's a rather new development. Showering and changing together makes these things relatively obvious.

The idea that men (as defined by their sex) have always had federal legal backing to use women's bathroom and gym facilities in schools is definitely new.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
I think how it's applied in schools makes it much more complex and that's a rather new development. Showering and changing together makes these things relatively obvious.

The idea that men (as defined by their sex) have always had federal legal backing to use women's bathroom and gym facilities in schools is definitely new.
Click to expand...
I agree that locker rooms, especially in schools, are problematic.  

 
Aside from the discussion of rights and equality, I find it hard to have any faith in a group of self professed "conservatives" who constantly look to overturn local decisions through State (or, if possible, Federal) law.  What a bunch of pathetic self serving hypocrites.  Don't tell me you are for small, localized gov't and then look to strong arm localities who don't think like you do.

 
timschochet said:
This is starting to get interesting. North Carolina is suing the federal government, claiming that transgenders are not protected from discrimination. 

North Carolina doubling down Pat McCrory and his goons are doubling down.
Click to expand...
DOJ is suing NC. It is on the news now.

 
simey said:
DOJ is suing NC. It is on the news now.
Click to expand...
It's fascinating. There are certainly some parallels to the old Civil Rights days.  Putting aside the issues involved, the Justice Department suing the state, the state countersuing the Justice Department- that sounds like Alabama trying to stop forced busing in the late 1960s. I imagine that in these disputes, the federal government usually gets their way. 

 
Koya said:
Aside from the discussion of rights and equality, I find it hard to have any faith in a group of self professed "conservatives" who constantly look to overturn local decisions through State (or, if possible, Federal) law.  What a bunch of pathetic self serving hypocrites.  Don't tell me you are for small, localized gov't and then look to strong arm localities who don't think like you do.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I hate when Charlotte gets lumped in with these clowns. This all started when Charlotte passed an ordinance that protected transgender people who used public restrooms based on their gender identity. The idiots in Raleigh decided to right HB2 to overrule Charlotte. It just pisses me off to see businesses/entertainers boycotting the city that was trying to do the right thing. How about taking all your business out of Raleigh/Durham and support us? As you said, it is the big government of NC strong arming Charlotte who was/is on the opposite end of thought.

 
stbugs said:
Koya said:
Aside from the discussion of rights and equality, I find it hard to have any faith in a group of self professed "conservatives" who constantly look to overturn local decisions through State (or, if possible, Federal) law.  What a bunch of pathetic self serving hypocrites.  Don't tell me you are for small, localized gov't and then look to strong arm localities who don't think like you do.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I hate when Charlotte gets lumped in with these clowns. This all started when Charlotte passed an ordinance that protected transgender people who used public restrooms based on their gender identity. The idiots in Raleigh decided to right HB2 to overrule Charlotte. It just pisses me off to see businesses/entertainers boycotting the city that was trying to do the right thing. How about taking all your business out of Raleigh/Durham and support us? As you said, it is the big government of NC strong arming Charlotte who was/is on the opposite end of thought.
Click to expand...
All of NC is paying the price for the terrible HB2 bill, and that includes Raleigh.  It isn't Raleigh's fault that the State Capital resides there. The way to get those "idiots" out is to not vote for them. 

 
simey said:
All of NC is paying the price for the terrible HB2 bill, and that includes Raleigh.  It isn't Raleigh's fault that the State Capital resides there. The way to get those "idiots" out is to not vote for them. 
Click to expand...
Hey, I'll lump you in if I want to!  ;)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top