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

[twa]

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

 

why would any business move to CT? 

I see more fleeing

 

GE, IBM ect

[Renegade7]

Turns out there have been rumors of BoA moving their HQ to another state for a couple years now, and Connecticut state legislature is currently courting them. That whole "removing the ability to complain to the state" thing is deplorable, and I feel terrible for that state and the research triangle (Red Hat is headquartered down there as well).

[jpage520]

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.  

 

Exactly. It opens up the door for folks to be able to try and stop them from using that designated restroom on a hunch that they might be trans. And then would protect the person who discriminated, instead of the person who was discriminated against.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Turns out there have been rumors of BoA moving their HQ to another state for a couple years now, and Connecticut state legislature is currently courting them. That whole "removing the ability to complain to the state" thing is deplorable, and I feel terrible for that state and the research triangle (Red Hat is headquartered down there as well).

 

It's horrible across the board for the obvious reasons.  But financially it could be devastating for Charlotte and the RTP area if they lose current corporations that are headquartered there, companies backing out from future relocation/expansion (like PayPal).  

[Bliz]

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?

Now you're driving at the core question. Should gay people be a protected class?. A lot of people think so. The problem here is that Charlotte said "we think you should be a protected class" and the state came in and said "hell no. You cannot protect those figs from discrimination ". THAT'S what has people up in arms

[Popeman38]

From what I've read, this means if you are fired because of your gender, or race, or whatever - you have no state level remedy anymore.

 

That's insane.

I don't think this is right. The law spells out the protected classes: race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap. If you are fired and wish to sue and are part of these protected classes, wouldn't federal law trump state law? You can sue under federal law for these discriminations.

 

Sexual orientation, however, is not a federally protected class. So I can see how this is a concern. OK, bad law. Took me a minute to get there. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Now you're driving at the core question. Should gay people be a protected class?. A lot of people think so. The problem here is that Charlotte said "we think you should be a protected class" and the state came in and said "hell no. You cannot protect those figs from discrimination ". THAT'S what has people up in arms

 

It also bars workplace discrimination claims from NC courts for anyone that thinks they were discriminated against (e.g. race, gender, etc.).  One would now have to take it to the federal courts which is a much more difficult process.  

 

Here is an article from Charlotte Magizine's website about that:  http://www.charlottemagazine.com/Charlotte-Magazine/April-2016/The-HB2-Provision-Few-Are-Talking-About/

I don't think this is right. The law spells out the protected classes: race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap. If you are fired and wish to sue and are part of these protected classes, wouldn't federal law trump state law? You can sue under federal law for these discriminations.

 

Sexual orientation, however, is not a federally protected class. So I can see how this is a concern. OK, bad law. Took me a minute to get there. 

 

Yes, you now would have to take it to a federal court.  But the process is a lot more difficult and time consuming.  

[The Evil Genius]

The statute of limitations for these civil suits at federal (180 days from discriminatory act) vs state court (I believe I read 3 years from discriminatory act in NC) is also a lot less. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

The statute of limitations for these civil suits at federal vs state court is also a lot less.

90 days versus 3 years. After they get approved from the EEOC to file in the first place.

[The Evil Genius]

I think it's not hard to see the point of some of the language in the bill. Conservatives in NC definitely wanted to drastically remove and/or reduce civil discrimination court cases in the state (I suspect they hope by forcing everyone to go the federal route, either people won't pursue it anymore or they will be timed out). 

 

Looks like the White House is looking at punishing NC by taking away federal dollars. It won't happen. But it is a nice big stick to repeatedly hit states over the head with.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/us/politics/north-carolina-anti-discrimination-law-obama-federal-funds.html?_r=0

[Jumbo]

We are still living in times and cultures (not all of them) where folks of "different plumbing" can't vacate waste in public facilities unless separated from each other. Our majority cultural perception is it's not safe and even at best, would still be highly uncomfortable for most. That this can be argued as more socially shaped than fundamentally necessary is worth attending--as is fact that there are and have been times and places where it wasn't an issue.

 

But it is a big social issue for us here and elsewhere, and that's the reality. Sadly, we're "not ready" for such a thing. And "protecting the kids" from any feared sexual "trauma" via seeing other-sex genitalia or threat (like plumbing alone decides a threat) may be a sorry reflection of how far we have to go, but it is the lay of the land.

 

The backlash from most socially prominent topics on sexuality is mainly ignorant bigotry (mean or nice form) at this point, largely courtesy of the reptile brain and "tribalism" from when we first gathered in groups and roamed into other groups in competition for resources, including "different" people being either a resource or a threat.

 

And then as time went on "bigotry"  (fear-based prejudice) continued "evolving" in forms and presentations (justifications) now driven more by personal development/ego/socialization issues that usually feed/favor the more limbic approach to such matters. 

 

And such deep-seated bigotry is of course a fundamental tenet of Christianity and Islam---not exclusively, just deserving of special note due to level of influence. And no, "loving the sinner" does not make one less ignorant in negative judgment ("you're risking your soul"). It just hopefully means you're not  hateful in your prejudice. Such folks are even helpful in such matters as we continue to try to understand and transcend various threat/resource bigotry or more "modern" insecurity-centered "isms." 

 

In current technical societies, much of our fear has mutated from threats to physical survival to threats to our personal identity (ego) and worldview (beliefs). Same basic **** often kicks into action whether a tiger is charging or someone's disagreeing with you immigration views. The result is usually not as visceral and full of highly active biological responses, but the absence of  "serious" threats (like the tiger or no food), the "lesser" threat gets that focus and can be just as impacting, if often much more subliminal. Our brains have evolved to where you have options now, thanks to the prefrontal cortex augment. You can use that to support (reinforce) your reptile brain or "transcend" it (I like "give the lead to"), and with the sophistication of language (hi Norm) these days, one can argue well in service to either.

 

We are still very early in our development.

 

We are not as "mature" as many species, and that includes our already highly-developed brain construction, resulting cognitive capabilities and behavior ( (thinking/reacting patterns) and are just "recently" starting to understand more clearly why/how we "believe" much of what  we "believe" to date. Give it a million years, if we make it. That's not that long, specie-wise. 

 

What's the topic? Dude looks like a lady?

 

 

[ZRagone]

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.

That's an inaccurate depiction of the argument being used by most of those against this bill, which isn't that TRANS folk were going to go in and abuse women, but rather that biologically male sexual predators (regardless of their gender identity) could potentially CLAIM that they "identify as female" and thus have access to female bathrooms/lockerooms, which could intern increase the potential for physical abuse, voyeuristic abuse, or simple discomfort on the part of women in said restrooms.

You can quibble and have issues with their argument all you want, but at least portray it right. Very few seem to be thinking that the problem is only that TRANS folks were going to use this to abuse women.

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

What's the topic? Dude looks like a lady?

 

 

 

I thought it was more...I'm not dumb but I can't understand why she walk like a woman and talk like a man. 

[Jumbo]

I thought it was more...I'm not dumb but I can't understand why she walk like a woman and talk like a man. 

 

 

[Zguy28]

Nobody thinks this is just a pissing match between conservatives at the state level and liberals at the city level?

[ZRagone]

It also bars workplace discrimination claims from NC courts for anyone that thinks they were discriminated against (e.g. race, gender, etc.).  One would now have to take it to the federal courts which is a much more difficult process.

The stuff you all have been highlighting with discrimination is the stuff I wish was getting more attention and focus from both the traditional media and on social media, but sadly the vast majority of stuff I've seen have all been focused on the "bathroom" part of it.

The discrimination part, which impacts not just the LGBT community but pretty much everyone in some fashion, is far more problematic and I think would be able to get far more people on board with having an issue with it.

The whole "trans IDENTITY" thing I think is a far harder sell, and yet seems to be what more people are focusing on. I think you're going to garner much more opposition in fighting against a notion that people have no legitimate recourse for any kind of discrimination than you would in fighting against the notion that people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their plumbing not their feelings.

If people want to get rid of separate gender bathrooms/locker rooms, that's a discussion that can be had. But one that I just simply don't think our society and culture is at a place for. So then it comes to why to asking why are the rooms separate, how does that impact the societal norms, etc.

When I first heard of the law and didn't have a chance to do any research, I was only hearing about the bathroom part. And I had zero problems with that. Ultimately, bathrooms are a function of biology, and I think biology is what matters there. Those who have a legitimately diagnosed medical issue and who have undergone surgery to "correct" their physical gender, I have no issue with them using that "new" gender's restroom. But if you're a man or woman that just "feels" like the opposite sex, I don't support that being the singular determination that someone can use to claim they should have free reign in entering the opposite sexs bathrooms/lockerrooms.

However, having done additional research into the law and reading some of the other stories, I am not a supporter of it because the bathroom issue is a tiny segment that is simply getting a lot of attention, and the broader issue regarding discrimination seems to be the true problem in my mind.

 

Nobody thinks this is just a pissing match between conservatives at the state level and liberals at the city level?

That's pretty much exactly what it is

[Dan T.]

North Carolina's Lt. Governor raises the "Won't Somebody Think of the Children" defense.

 

"If our action in keeping men out of women's bathrooms and showers protected the life of just one child or one woman from being molested or assaulted, then it was worth it," said Lt. Gov. Forest in a statement following PayPal's announcement on April 5.

 

"North Carolina will never put a price tag on the value of our children," he said.  "They are precious and priceless. If a corporation wanting to do business in North Carolina does not see the worth of our children in the same light, then I wish them well as they do business somewhere else."

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/nc-lt-gov-paypal-if-bathroom-law-protects-one-child-being-molested-its-worth

[SkinsHokieFan]

I am still mad the state called a special session and wasted 42k in taxpayer dollars on this.

 

And that this will have an impact on some very cool companies opening up shop in the triangle 

[jpage520]

That's an inaccurate depiction of the argument being used by most of those against this bill, which isn't that TRANS folk were going to go in and abuse women, but rather that biologically male sexual predators (regardless of their gender identity) could potentially CLAIM that they "identify as female" and thus have access to female bathrooms/lockerooms, which could intern increase the potential for physical abuse, voyeuristic abuse, or simple discomfort on the part of women in said restrooms.

You can quibble and have issues with their argument all you want, but at least portray it right. Very few seem to be thinking that the problem is only that TRANS folks were going to use this to abuse women.

 

I should've put trans in quotes. I was initially going for that idea. But didn't make my point properly. My apologies.

[lovetoaster]

However, having done additional research into the law and reading some of the other stories, I am not a supporter of it because the bathroom issue is a tiny segment that is simply getting a lot of attention, and the broader issue regarding discrimination seems to be the true problem in my mind.

 

You are totally right, and I found it interesting that both sides have mainly been arguing the merit of only this part of the legislation. I live in Charlotte, and I was watching a news program where people from both sides were arguing about bathrooms. I figured that the folks there against HB2 would bring up some other key facets, but they never did. I kept thinking "it is broader than this."

 

I get why the conservatives are focusing on the bathroom issue, because it distracts from some other things in the bill, and it is at least a gray area that is obviously an issue that stirs people up. But I think the liberals did a poor job by mainly focusing on the bathroom issue as well. It's about more than that, and a lot of people are ignoring or just missing those points.  

[twa]

if they were cool they would open anyway, instead they are intolerant bigots 

[Jumbo]

<edit>, instead they are intolerant bigots 

 

 

They're the worst kind of asswipes. Lucky me and you are tolerant bigots. 

 

Or maybe we're just getting old and lazy. 

[Destino]

There are very real reasons we want to limit who can rest rooms, safety and the perception of safety is a big one. Rest rooms are places without cameras and by their nature out of sight. This makes them a wonderful place for assaults to take place and they have. Women, in general, do not want men being allowed to follow them into the restroom. Also, before anyone thinks to bring it up, no that is not the same as women using the men's room, the threat is night-and-day different. My point in saying this is to move us beyond the "why do people even care" line of thinking. There is a reason to care, it's ok to care, and no this isn't about accidentally spotting genitals.

That said, transwomen are not a threat to women. They are not men in the complete sense of the word. I've never seen any data showing that they are. It shows the opposite, that they are consistently more likely to be the victims of violence. It's easier to make the case that everyone is safer if trans people can use the bathroom they identify with rather than matching up, borrowing an earlier bit of inelegance, their plumbing. Safety is a topic I think most people can agree makes sense to use in making policy decisions, right?

If someone wants to "think of the children" then they should advocate for a third, family friendly, restroom. Families with small kids would appreciate it.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I don't think I buy the safety aspect.  I think it is more like what Jumbo said which is basically "it's uncomfortable".  After all, if a guy wants to assault a women, there are many other places to do it besides a bathroom.   Someone who is a predator will still be a predator.  And someone who isn't will continue to not assault people.  And what keeps me, a small guy, from being assaulted in the men's room by other men?  Or women being assaulted by another woman?  I'm for just going to unisex bathrooms.  Will it be weird at first?  Sure.  But I bet it was weird when blacks were first allowed into all bathrooms.  It will become normal after a bit.  It seems scary because we aren't used to it.  I did some quick google searches and haven't seen anywhere that unisex bathrooms have been implemented and they saw an increase in assaults on women.  Maybe I didn't look hard enough?

[Corcaigh]

In other news, tech behemoth Salesforce, which has been very vocal on this issue, is offering a 50% discount on their upcoming conference in Georgia (which recently vetoed a similar law). Promo code for the discount is EQUALITY