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

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

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.  

 

That's the problem living here in NC (I'm in CLT too), they focus on the transgender bathroom access part of the bill.  I will admit that when it got passed, at first, I was unaware of all the other parts of the bill that were impacted.  

 

It's definitely a pissing contest during an election year.  Also a money save as TEG pointed out.  And also a play to gain the vote of the bigots or uneducated people scattered across this state.   The ones that don't understand the entire impact of the bill (uneducated) and the ones that simply just don't care (bigots/racists).

[Bang]

Bathroom key - minimum purchase $100.

 

You just have to be entrepreneurial and recognize which god really runs this country.

 

~Bang

[Zguy28]

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?

I don't really buy it either. Its about idealogies. One side believes gender is synonymous with sex. The other does not, and thinks one should be able to change gender basically at will (some will take issue with that terminology, but if Caitlin Jenner suddenly decided to be a man again, nobody could argue against that decision, so it is willful) and enjoy the fruits and privileges that their new gender affords. LGBT laws are passed to protect them from violence and discrimination and to push progressive agenda to "normalize" LGBT. Religious liberty laws are passed because people don't want something they consider wrong/immoral/whatever to be forced on them as right/moral/normal, nor do they want to be forced as a business owner to take part in it ala gay-wedding catering or photography. I mean, let's face it, those are the reasons. People on both sides feel threatened and have consciences. Conservatives call LGBT folks deviants, perverts, sickos etc. liberals call Christians bigots, racists, ignorant etc. Round and round we go.

[ZRagone]

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.

My honest take on this...as it relates at least to the activists, which ultimately are the ones that tend to drive the discussion since passive observers will simply focus on what's getting the coverage/volume...is similar to the whole thing with Marriage.

I think marriage equality could've been won in the courts FAR sooner had the various legal cases attempted to focus the arguments of their case around the notion of gender discrimination...which his already established in case law as requiring the government to reach a higher burden of responsibility in order to discriminate on such a criteria...as opposed to sexual orientation. If the issue truly was allowing for same sex couples to be able to marry, THAT would've been the quicker and easier means of reaching that conclusion.

But it was never about marriage for most activists. Marriage was simply a vessel. It was simply an emotional cudgel, something that pulls on the heart strings and appeals to people on a very base level, that served as the platform to attempt to beat their true desire into law and into society; that of treating homosexuality in the same way that race and sex is viewed.

It wasn't about getting two gay people to be married; it was about getting the law, and society in general, to view homosexuality as no different than being black or being a female. Marriage was simply the vehicle for this.

That is why, for many activists, going the harder route of trying to argue for it on the basis of sexual orientation, instead of gender, was preferred.

Now I'm not saying that goal is wrong or it was wrong of them to attempt to reach that goal or to use the tactics they did. I'm simply saying that is how I viewed the motives of their tactics.

As it relates to this, I see a similar thing...

This isn't about bathrooms. It's not even about discrimination, in and of itself. Activists within the LBGT crowd, and it's supporters, are seeing this as an issue in which to push for their more generalized goal...the societal normalization of transgenders and the establishment under the law of GENDER IDENTITY as being no different than being black, being female, etc.

When viewed from that light, the bathroom thing makes sense, as it's again using an issue upon which the bully pulpit can be ascended and condemnation against those that speak against it can be levied, in the name of contorting society to accept their norms. The discrimination issue is one that is far broader in scope, and thus muddies the water as it relates to their actual primary focus. You can't push and manipulate a societal and legal acceptance of transgenderism, from actual medically declared instances involving medical procedures down to "I feel I am a woman so I wear dresses" types, as well when they are but one of MULTIPLE groups that are being focused upon.

As such, for the purpose of activism, the focus is one the hot button issue that promotes the message and cause they're championing at this given point in time. Anything that doesn't help that is secondary, as it muddies the message, and as is the case with any political entity MESSAGE is the most important thing.

And ultimately, it's activists...on either sides...message that tends to steer the conversation for average people. Because it's the activists that are more prolific on social media, on the traditional media, etc. They're the ones driving the coverage and driving the story, and thus their angle is the one that tends to get the most attention from those casually observing, and then discussing, the issue around the water cooler.

That's why, in this case, the focus is on the bathroom stuff. Because for many, this isn't about this bill, it isn't about north Carolina, it's not about discrimination...it's primarily, at it's core, about the forceful attempt to normalize any and all forms of transgenderism. And the bathroom stuff is the part of this bill that singular focuses on pushing that the best.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

I don't really buy it either. Its about idealogies. One side believes gender is synonymous with sex. The other does not, and thinks one should be able to change gender basically at will (some will take issue with that terminology, but if Caitlin Jenner suddenly decided to be a man again, nobody could argue against that decision, so it is willful) and enjoy the fruits and privileges that their new gender affords. LGBT laws are passed to protect them from violence and discrimination and to push progressive agenda to "normalize" LGBT. Religious liberty laws are passed because people don't want something they consider wrong/immoral/whatever to be forced on them as right/moral/normal, nor do they want to be forced as a business owner to take part in it ala gay-wedding catering or photography. I mean, let's face it, those are the reasons. People on both sides feel threatened and have consciences. Conservatives call LGBT folks deviants, perverts, sickos etc. liberals call Christians bigots, racists, ignorant etc. Round and round we go.

 

This is a bigger issue than "just picking a side" though.  

 

This bill does not allow anyone (white, black, christian, jewish, male, female, gay/lesbian, transgender, etc.) living in the state of NC to pursue legal action at the state level if they feel they have been wrongfully terminated based on discrimination.  It forces them to jump through hoops in hopes they can obtain justice at the federal level.

 

This impacts all NC residents.  What if my wife's current boss leaves and they hire a sexist male to replace him.  He thinks that no woman should be making that salary or that her position should be filled by a man and not a woman.  So he fires her.  Now the only thing she can do is make a case with the EEOC and hope they approve her case to take it to a federal court.

 

What happens in a company where they need to downsize and let people go, say 20 jobs and 10 of the people are minorities.  But in reality say that there are only 20 minorities working there to begin with, so 50% of them were laid off.  Assume that their overall job performance was better than some that kept their jobs and equal to others.  Maybe the person making that decision is a bigot/racist.  So now they have to go through a long, expensive process to try and get justice.

 

I'm for equality for everyone, so I don't support this in any way shape or form.  But I'm also embarrassed by this as a NC resident.  I almost can't look at my Facebook Newsfeed now cause some of the comments related to this show just how stupid and assbackwards people can be.

[ZRagone]

Round and round we go.

Spot on. And both sides will have it's members who will scream till the cows come home why their slant on it is actually reality, 100% reasonable, and completely true and the other side is the worst thing ever and every attack and action against them is justified and that there is not an ounce of reasonableness in what they think and their view should be stomped out.

This is a symptom of how our political system is becoming in the modern age of social media and 24/7 communication. This has simply enhanced the inherent tribalism within people, and what's more removed various filters that have been found in the past.

Previously, people kept certain views or thoughts private. Perhaps they felt it was socially uncouth. Perhaps they felt no one else could possibly feel the way they did. Perhaps they simply were actually ashamed they felt that way.

But now, with the internet, one can EASILY find others that share your views, no matter how outlandish they may possibly be. There is somewhere out there that just about any view, thought, or opinion will somehow fit and will be part of an echo chamber. Which emboldens people, as the feeling of isolation decreases, the impact of social norms lessens, and suddenly you see various things becoming more prominent than you'd have expected before.

Along with this, BECAUSE it is so easy to find those that are of an exact like mind as you...no matter what that mind is...the desire or need to actually deal with and associate with those that think differently decreases. When our world was largely built upon what was immediately around us, then people generally accepted there were going to be people in their life that didn't think like them. Thus, you either had to tolerate...truly TOLERATE, not necessarily "accept"...those that held a different opinion or view than you, because your choices would become far to limited. But again, with the ability to find an echo chamber for almost any view or mentality, and the ability to interact in various substantial ways with people all over the world, the need to greatly associate with those that view things differently then you diminishes.

So people are more able to find their tiny "clans" and are more able to group within those clans. They feel emboldened to spread their message, whatever it is. And as is the case in most instances of tribalism, the larger they grow and the more confident in themselves they feel, the more aggressive they become to those that are different or are threatening/oppose to them.

[PleaseBlitz]

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

 

 

Anti-LGBT arguments ALWAYS resort to "won't somebody think of the children" after they are shown to be hateful and unnecessary with respect to adults who should know better.  The advantage is not needing any data to back up those claims. All the other guy can do is come out Pro-Thing That Might Maybe Hurt Children Maybe Because We Said.  

 

Essentially, it's pretty easy to respond to any argument, no matter how well-reasoned, with "well it might harm children, so there."

[ZRagone]

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?

Here's the problem I think.

What constitutes a "Trans" individual is something that can be very narrow or very broad, depending on who you talk to.

Some mix it with transsexual, some don't. Some view it as those who have verifiable mental issues such as gender dysphoria while others may view it as anyone that simply feels more comfortable with behavior typically associated with another gender (which in and of itself can be offensive to some, as they dislike the notion that a behavior should be viewed as "typical" of one gender or another). Others frankly don't even think it should be a thing, and you're only what you were born (which is thrown all loopy given there are a tiny bit of folks who are actually born with both)

What of someone who is biologically male, functions as a male during the day for ease of situation, but in the evenings functions as a woman and identifies as such? Do you use the mens room with your co-worker at work, but use the women's room with other co-workers at happy hour after you've changed clothes?

I've seen this debate pop up all across the internet and in personal life and rarely do I see everyone...on either side...having a uniformed and universal definition of what qualifies as "trans" person and what doesn't. Where the line should absolutely be drawn.

And unfortunately, like so many things with politics, rather than attempting to seriously discuss it and try and find a middle ground point that does its' best to respect the various views, thoughts, rights, etc of all sides in a manner that causes the least grief across the board, people tend to bunker down into the extremes of either side in order to stake out "their ground" and "their side".

[grhqofb5]

Which to me begs the question - Is sexual orientation a federally protected class? If not, why not? If it is - how can states pass legislation that harms a protected class?

 

I've always thought that overweight/obesity should be a protected class, but for some reason it has not gotten any traction.  That is the most discriminated class out of all of them.

[PleaseBlitz]

I've always thought that overweight/obesity should be a protected class, but for some reason it has not gotten any traction.  That is the most discriminated class out of all of them.

 

Protected classes tend to be things that aren't a characteristic by choice.  Exceptions being religion and whether you have kids (or are currently pregnant) or are a veteran.  

 

Anyways, overweight people are the majority in this country. 

 

Edit:  Also, I'm sorry, but the most discriminated class is black people.  I'm sorry if you've gotten some dirty looks, but I'm guessing you've never been arrested for driving while fat. 

[Zguy28]

This is a bigger issue than "just picking a side" though.  

 

This bill does not allow anyone (white, black, christian, jewish, male, female, gay/lesbian, transgender, etc.) living in the state of NC to pursue legal action at the state level if they feel they have been wrongfully terminated based on discrimination.  It forces them to jump through hoops in hopes they can obtain justice at the federal level.

 

This impacts all NC residents.  What if my wife's current boss leaves and they hire a sexist male to replace him.  He thinks that no woman should be making that salary or that her position should be filled by a man and not a woman.  So he fires her.  Now the only thing she can do is make a case with the EEOC and hope they approve her case to take it to a federal court.

 

What happens in a company where they need to downsize and let people go, say 20 jobs and 10 of the people are minorities.  But in reality say that there are only 20 minorities working there to begin with, so 50% of them were laid off.  Assume that their overall job performance was better than some that kept their jobs and equal to others.  Maybe the person making that decision is a bigot/racist.  So now they have to go through a long, expensive process to try and get justice.

 

I'm for equality for everyone, so I don't support this in any way shape or form.  But I'm also embarrassed by this as a NC resident.  I almost can't look at my Facebook Newsfeed now cause some of the comments related to this show just how stupid and assbackwards people can be.

I wonder if forcing people to seek redress at the Federal level is some kind of shot back at the Fed gov for decisions forcing states to conform on issue like gay weddings or sexual orientation being a protected class. Kind of like "you want to bully us, now you have to deal with the law suits" type of thing.

[RVAbrendan]

 

 

These are the sort of thing that will happen as a result of this law. I personally know a handful of trans people, some of which have used testosterone and are transitioning, that would look REALLY out of place using their "gender assigned at birth" bathroom. One of the people I know was for a male but identifies as a female. And legit looks like a woman. She would feel uncomfortable in a male restroom, and I'm sure the males in said restroom would feel a little uncomfortable with her in there as well. I would imagine the discomfort would rise if the roles were reversed (see the pictures above).

 

All that being said, and I'm sure it's been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it makes things easier for parents with children with disabilities and other outliers like that, too.

 

I'm sure most of us have worked or visited establishments with gender-neutral single-occupancy restrooms, and you know what? It's not a big deal. Now, would I feel a little uncomfortable dropping a deuce in a stall next to a woman? For some reason, yeah, I might. But I'd like to think after a while, it would simply become a non issue.

 

Fun fact: The number of Congressmen who have assaulted someone in a bathroom is higher than the number of trans people who have assaulted someone in a bathroom (from what I've found, it's zero).

[Zguy28]

I've always thought that overweight/obesity should be a protected class, but for some reason it has not gotten any traction.  That is the most discriminated class out of all of them.

You stole my idea!!

 

Its not fat from poor choices, its glandular I swear!

[Burgold]

I'm fine with businesses weighing the profit/cost of Free Speech and making a statement. Clearly, they felt this was worth saying. After all, changing plans cost the company money.  Whether it was the research and prep work that went into choosing the site or everything spent on prep work, they're willing to swallow that loss plus whatever goodies North Carolina promised them to come to their state to do this.

 

Therefore, it's a real statement or more cynically... they thought the PR advantage of doing this would offset the losses of changing locations.

 

Free speech has costs which PayPal was willing to bear. Discrimination has costs too. We'll find out the strength of North Carolina's convictions as this goes forward.

[Zguy28]

Image of erroneous tweet

That's not quite correct. The law does respect the birth certificate, but also changes to it. So born male, but changed BC to female later counts as female.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I thought about it some more and did some more research on drawbacks and I really think the answer is all unisex bathrooms.  I'm debating if it should be discussed here or start another thread and if it is even worth the discussion.  Thoughts?

[PleaseBlitz]

I thought about it some more and did some more research on drawbacks and I really think the answer is all unisex bathrooms.  I'm debating if it should be discussed here or start another thread and if it is even worth the discussion.  Thoughts?

 

Does anyone really want to take a **** with a woman in the room?  I don't do that at home, I certainly don't want to do it at work. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Does anyone really want to take a **** with a woman in the room?  I don't do that at home, I certainly don't want to do it at work. 

Does anyone really WANT to take a **** with anyone in the room? 

[The 12th Commandment]

Do ladies and girls routinely walk around naked in public restrooms?  You'd have to be obvious to be copping looks in any men's room I've ever been in and you'd catch hell for it no matter what species you were.  I don't get why the bathroom thing raises such a ruckus.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

McCrory is a small, pathetic man.  This is just posturing from the butthurt over the freedom of marriage act.

 

I live in NC.  I'm surprised at how many righties, including some in my family, try to spin this as protecting women and children.  They say the law will keep predators out of the bathroom, but stricter gun control laws won't keep the criminals from getting guns. 

 

Excuse me, I'm gonna burn one and read Jumbo's post on the last page until I understand it.

[RVAbrendan]

That's not quite correct. The law does respect the birth certificate, but also changes to it. So born male, but changed BC to female later counts as female.

I did not realize that.

 

However, not all trans people have reassignment surgery, which seems to be the requirement in North Carolina. In fact, I would venture to guess that the majority do not. Just food for thought.

 

 

Statute: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 130A-118( (4), (e) (2005).

Text: ( A new certificate of birth shall be made by the State Registrar when . . .

(4) A written request from an individual is received by the State Registrar to change the sex on that individual's birth record because of sex reassignment surgery, if the request is accompanied by a notarized statement from the physician who performed the sex reassignment surgery or from a physician licensed to practice medicine who has examined the individual and can certify that the person has undergone sex reassignment surgery.

Summary: North Carolina will issue a birth certificate reflecting the proper sex.

[twa]

I thought about it some more and did some more research on drawbacks and I really think the answer is all unisex bathrooms.  I'm debating if it should be discussed here or start another thread and if it is even worth the discussion.  Thoughts?

 

I have no problem with them, nor with unisex showers 

[Destino]

Here's the problem I think.

What constitutes a "Trans" individual is something that can be very narrow or very broad, depending on who you talk to.

 

 

I agree.  LGBT groups are largely hostile to labels and rigid definitions but there is certainly an issue here for the purposes of making rules.  Liberal utopias and conservative capitalist heavens may argue that we don't need so many rules but societies in the real world have always proven the opposite.  A definition for who exactly qualifies as trans would be helpful, and I'm not sure simply stating that you are is sufficient. 

 

Definitions are key because of things like this:

 

 

Man Disguised as Woman Recorded "Hours" of Mall Restroom Video: Investigators

Charges were filed Tuesday against a man who wore a wig and women's clothing to disguise himself as he allegedly used a concealed camera to record "hours" of video of women in a Los Angeles-area department store restroom.

 

Jason Pomare, 33, of Palmdale, was arrested Saturday after customers contacted security officers at a Macy's store to report a man in the women's restroom. The security officers contacted a deputy, who was on patrol at the Antelope Valley Mall (map) when he saw a man matching the subject's description leave the store.

 

 

Rodney Kenneth Petersen Dressed As Woman To Take Photos Of Female Students: Police

A crossdressing man was arrested for striking a college security guard with his car as he tried to drive off the Loma Linda University campus near San Bernadino, Calif., where he was allegedly trying to take surreptitious photos of female students, the Los Angeles Times reports.

 

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department told the Times that on June 4 Rodney Kenneth Petersen, 46, dressed as a woman and attempted unsuccessfully to enter areas of a women’s dormitory on the Loma Linda campus that were restricted to students.

Campus staff confronted Petersen, the Press-Enterprise in Riverside, Calif., reports, who then headed to his vehicle in the parking lot. Security guards tried to stop Petersen, but he allegedly drove off and struck a campus officer with his car in the process, causing minor injuries, authorities told the Pasadena Star-News.

 

Note that these are not "assaults" and these men are likely not by definition transgender.  So anyone looking for these incidents will come up with nothing and say "there are no transgender assaults that we can find" and they'd be right.  But without definitions how does one differentiate between perverts looking to peep and transgender people simply looking to live their lives in peace.  It may not be a comfortable discussion but we can't just ignore things that don't fall perfectly within our worldview. 

[RVAbrendan]

Problem is, that kind of stuff happens regardless of a sign on a door.

 

Guess you could also say that gender orientation and being a pervert aren't correlated...IE there are perverts of all genders, sexes, races, orientations, etc.

 

Edit: To touch again on the gender being allowed in if it's changed on the BC...I don't get how that's realistic for general society. Are we going to have door men at every bathroom now checking IDs and BCs?

[Kilmer17]

I hate the idea of a law preventing a person from suing when they feel their rights have been violated.

I wouldn't agree with a ruling agreeing with an lgbt persons claims in these situations. But I'd rather a court make that ruling than a law preventing one branch of govt from doing their job