Vox: PayPal makes it official: North Carolina's anti-LGBTQ law will cost the state jobs

[No Excuses]

OK, this bill does nothing to "threaten" homosexuals. All this does is "force" people to use the bathroom/lockeroom of the biological sex they are. If the plumbing is external, use the room marked for males. If the plumbing is internal, use the one marked for females. I am not sure exactly how this is discriminatory - unless we consider feelings ignored to be discriminatory.

 

To you they are feelings, to some it is their identity driven by biological factors out of their control. And there is at least some early-stage science to back up their claims so it isn't as if they are wholly making this stuff up.

 

(And this isn't even the only aspect of this bill FWIW)

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Wait, what?  That's not "all" the bill does.  Read TEG's post

That's the problem here in NC, people only focus on that one part of the bill, not the entire thing.  It's disturbing that this happened, but not shocking given the fact that it was all Republican pushing this one and we are in the Bible belt.  

 

No.  But I think it should be.  And as I said it is my right and everyone else's that believes it's wrong to go protest that restaurant until they change their policy or close down.

 

Just do all of us a favor and leave this thread.  

[Popeman38]

Is it a restaurant's right to decide that they won't serve black people? 

 

The law is more than just self-designated bathrooms. It allows businesses to refuse service to people because they are gay. 

Not sure how you got there form the actual bill. There is nothing in the bill regulating private business at all. In fact, it specifically states it is solely public buildings. 

[Elessar78]

No.  But I think it should be.  And as I said it is my right and everyone else's that believes it's wrong to go protest that restaurant until they change their policy or close down.

Good grief. So racist and intolerance is the default? So open a racist restaurant in an intolerant enough state/county and no one protests it then they get to continue being racist.

 

Are you racist?

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just do all of us a favor and leave this thread.  

 

So you have a problem with opposing opinions?  Or a problem with me saying I would go protest a place that did this? 

 

Good grief. So racist and intolerance is the default? So open a racist restaurant in an intolerant enough state/county and no one protests it then they get to continue being racist.

 

Are you racist?

No.  Just the way people didn't read the whole law, you seem to be ignoring where I said I would go protest them.  I just believe in private businesses having a right to do things as they see fit.  If you don't want a Asian person in your house, that is your right.  If a private business owner purchased their business they should be able to do the same.  But they can't complain when I and a million others show up to protest and they go out of business.

[jpage520]

OK, this bill does nothing to "threaten" homosexuals. All this does is "force" people to use the bathroom/lockeroom of the biological sex they are. If the plumbing is external, use the room marked for males. If the plumbing is internal, use the one marked for females. I am not sure exactly how this is discriminatory - unless we consider feelings ignored to be discriminatory. This issue, to me, is not difficult. If you are biologically a male or female, you will have to use the facilities marked as such. Not exactly sure why to  this is a huge issue. It seems very manufactured to me. Like the hurt feelings at Emory over chalk, there are some boundaries you have to accept. Not all of them are discrimination. 

 

And please don't try to link this to orientation. This is a completely separate issue.

 

There is absolutely a threatening aspect to a bill that pretty much forces someone who may not look like the gender the restroom specifies. A transgender woman being forced to use the male restroom opens up the possibility of violence towards them that they already have to fear every day.

 

This is much more of a threat than the bogus premise the law was created under claiming that trans folks were going to go into women's restrooms to abuse women.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Good grief. So racist and intolerance is the default? So open a racist restaurant in an intolerant enough state/county and no one protests it then they get to continue being racist.

 

Are you racist?

 

His comments remind me of when Slateman (think it was him) was defending the confederate flag.

[No Excuses]

No.  But I think it should be.  And as I said it is my right and everyone else's that believes it's wrong to go protest that restaurant until they change their policy or close down.

 

There will be pockets, plenty of them, in the country where such businesses will not go out of business. I think your outlook on this is a bit naive. It is essentially arguing for a return to some of the ugliest realities of this countries history. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

So you have a problem with opposing opinions?  Or a problem with me saying I would go protest a place that did this? 

 

I have a problem with people thinking that a business owner should have the right to discriminate and not serve [insert race/sexual orientation here] people.  

 

Whether you would protest it or not is irrelevant if you think it should be allowed in the first place.

[Popeman38]

I have read the bill like 10 times, and I still see nothing other than public buildings and multiple occupancy bathrooms and changing rooms. Can someone post the portion that allows refusal of anything based on being gay?

[The Evil Genius]

I have read the bill like 10 times, and I still see nothing other than public buildings and multiple occupancy bathrooms and changing rooms. Can someone post the portion that allows refusal of anything based on being gay?

 

I believe I already have, but I would defer to the legal scholars who know better. I read the section I posted as the closing off of the ability to seek state recourse when discriminated against. It's no secret that conservative policy has been to eliminate civil cases as much as possible.

 

This seems to eliminate (edit..or greatly reduce the ) possibility of state claims of discrimination.

 

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/mar/30/pat-mccrory/pat-mccrory-wrong-when-he-says-north-carolinas-new/

 

 

"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 herein," the law states.

 

"This is a seismic issue," said Eric Doggett, a Raleigh lawyer who works in employment discrimination. "It’s huge. It’s a massive loss of rights, and it happened with almost no debate."

 

Laura Noble, a Chapel Hill employment discrimination lawyer, agreed.

 

"I won’t refer to this as a ‘bathroom bill’ because that's really not what it's about," she said. "It’s about the elimination of discrimination protections."

 

The law does say people who believe they were fired for discriminatory reasons can still bring suits to the state executive branch’s Human Resource Commission. 

 

But Doggett said that group doesn’t have the ability to award damages, like the state courts did until last Wednesday.

 

"There’s no remedy," he said. "They have no teeth. … If we state it's the public policy of this state not to discriminate on those bases, it doesn’t mean anything if we can't enforce it.""

[TheGreatBuzz]

His comments remind me of when Slateman (think it was him) was defending the confederate flag.

I didn't see that so I don't know how to respond.

 

There will be pockets, plenty of them, in the country where such businesses will not go out of business. I think your outlook on this is a bit naive. It is essentially arguing for a return to some of the ugliest realities of this countries history. 

I doubt it.  We have seen how well groups like BLM travel when needed.  I am pretty sure if a business actually tried to do this, CNN and other stations would pick up on this.  And the local airport would see a big upswing in business of people coming in to hold protests.

 

I have a problem with people thinking that a business owner should have the right to discriminate and not serve [insert race/sexual orientation here] people.  

 

Whether you would protest it or not is irrelevant if you think it should be allowed in the first place.

I guess I just have more faith that society as a whole would deal with it in a manner that it should be and therefore don't think we need laws for it.

[No Excuses]

I have read the bill like 10 times, and I still see nothing other than public buildings and multiple occupancy bathrooms and changing rooms. Can someone post the portion that allows refusal of anything based on being gay?

 

This is a good starting point.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/01/the-cunning-trick-in-north-carolinas-radical-new-anti-lgbt-law/

 

North Carolina has basically made it difficult/impossible to prohibit LGBT discrimination in cities/local municipalities. There is no state-wide protection for LGBT in the state and even if cities like Charlotte want to include protections for LGBT, they now can't. It is a clever workaround and I think this will likely end up in the Supreme Court at some point.

[Popeman38]

There is absolutely a threatening aspect to a bill that pretty much forces someone who may not look like the gender the restroom specifies. A transgender woman being forced to use the male restroom opens up the possibility of violence towards them that they already have to fear every day.

 

This is much more of a threat than the bogus premise the law was created under claiming that trans folks were going to go into women's restrooms to abuse women.

A transgender woman is male, correct? Just dressed as a woman (no one outside of that person can look at them and know their feelings), correct? In almost all circumstances, that person will walk into the female bathroom, wait for a stall, and use the facilities. What that person can't do is go into a gym locker-room, undress, and shower with women (And I'm pretty sure we can all understand how it would make women feel to be walking out of a shower and see a man with his dick swinging walking into the shower room; and vice versa). This applies to HS locker-room as well, and some of those are open shower rooms with very little privacy.

 

Again, please point out where I am missing something if I am missing something. I am not intentionally missing anything and have no issue re-evaluating my position...

[jpage520]

A transgender woman is male, correct? Just dressed as a woman (no one outside of that person can look at them and know their feelings), correct? In almost all circumstances, that person will walk into the female bathroom, wait for a stall, and use the facilities. What that person can't do is go into a gym locker-room, undress, and shower with women (And I'm pretty sure we can all understand how it would make women feel to be walking out of a shower and see a man with his dick swinging walking into the shower room; and vice versa). This applies to HS locker-room as well, and some of those are open shower rooms with very little privacy.

 

Again, please point out where I am missing something if I am missing something. I am not intentionally missing anything and have no issue re-evaluating my position...

 

But that law itself would make them walking into that bathroom to use it illegal, and should it cause an actual stir, prevents her from then being able to seek justice for that discrimination unless I'm mistaken here.

[Bliz]

I have read the bill like 10 times, and I still see nothing other than public buildings and multiple occupancy bathrooms and changing rooms. Can someone post the portion that allows refusal of anything based on being gay?

 

What you're missing is, gay people aren't protected under the 14th amendment (yet).  And the bill bans cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances which would grant them the same protections.  So the default rules (e.g., you can be fired for being gay, restaurants can refuse to serve you, etc.) are mandated to stay in place, even if the people of Charlotte say this is not what we want for our locality.

 

I haven't followed the bathroom issue closely, but as far as I know transgender people aren't actually trying to use public showers or changing areas of the other sex.  For the reasons you mention in your other post it would obviously cause quite a stir.  I think it's more about regular ole' bathrooms.  I'm thinking the shower stuff is just one of those things politicians throw in so they can make the people that vote against it seem unreasonable ("he wants boys in the girls' shower!")

[Zguy28]

But that law itself would make them walking into that bathroom to use it illegal, and should it cause an actual stir, prevents her from then being able to seek justice for that discrimination unless I'm mistaken here.

Yes it would, unless they had a sex change op. I think Popeman's point was that from a practical standpoint, you wouldn't know that woman was actually male anyway, so you wouldn't stop her from going into a public restroom, because she looked like a female.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Pope, in Part 3 of the bill, it's about rights in employment and public accommodations and does not include "sexual orientation" as being discriminated against.  It also includes the language that TEG posted, where nobody can pursue civil action.  

 

So basically, sexual orientation is not protected and even though it says that employers cannot discriminate based on race, age, biological gender (they had to toss biological in front), etc., if they did, it's saying that the person affected can't sue.  

 

 

Then there is another part about the minimum wage scale and the transgender access to restrooms that everyone is focusing on, instead of the bigger issues at hand.

[twa]

Can you elaborate? I didn't realize you could self designate sexual orientation. I don't remember when I chose to be straight.

 

Edit: flubbed my words.

 

So you think the govt or others designate it? 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

If something isn't done about this, NC is going to be in trouble, specifically Charlotte.  PayPal backing out is just the beginning, what happens when BoA gets lured to CT?

 

Here is an article about that from the bizjournals.com website:  http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/morning-edition/2016/04/connecticut-looks-to-lure-bofa-hq-hb2.html

[Rocky21]

The Jesse Helms state strikes again. 

 

You guys should read up on the Bill Mississippi just passed.  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/05/473107959/mississippi-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill-into-law

[twa]

 

 

I haven't followed the bathroom issue closely, but as far as I know transgender people aren't actually trying to use public showers or changing areas of the other sex.  For the reasons you mention in your other post it would obviously cause quite a stir.  I think it's more about regular ole' bathrooms.  I'm thinking the shower stuff is just one of those things politicians throw in so they can make the people that vote against it seem unreasonable ("he wants boys in the girls' shower!")

 

yes some are ....including in schools

 

my opinion is pre-op they need to go by the plumbing.

 

add

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/03/feds-order-high-school-to-allow-boys-who-dress-as-girls-to-use-girls-shower-locker-room/

[Popeman38]

Yes it would, unless they had a sex change op. I think Popeman's point was that from a practical standpoint, you wouldn't know that woman was actually male anyway, so you wouldn't stop her from going into a public restroom, because she looked like a female.

That was precisely my point.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

That was precisely my point.

 

Yes, you most likely wouldn't know if a transgender male that was dressed like a woman went into the women's bathroom or not.  We wouldn't know it now nor then.  But you're missing the bigger picture of the entire bill.  

[Popeman38]

Pope, in Part 3 of the bill, it's about rights in employment and public accommodations and does not include "sexual orientation" as being discriminated against.  It also includes the language that TEG posted, where nobody can pursue civil action.  

 

So basically, sexual orientation is not protected and even though it says that employers cannot discriminate based on race, age, biological gender (they had to toss biological in front), etc., if they did, it's saying that the person affected can't sue.  

 

 

Then there is another part about the minimum wage scale and the transgender access to restrooms that everyone is focusing on, instead of the bigger issues at hand.

OK, I read that as all being tied to bathrooms/locker-rooms. I will read again and digest. If this is the case, then yeah the bill should be struck.

 

I do have mixed feeling on if you are not part of a protected class you shouldn't  be able to sue on the grounds you were discriminated against. If Jared Fogle gets released from jail and tries to use a catering company for his big welcome home party, and the caterer refuses because of who he is, should he be able to sue for discrimination?