NC Civil Rights

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

So you're sorry people like Skybutter go through lives of brutal discrimination, but your god says its justified and you ask your God to bless him?

 

Annoying things about conservatives. They use extremely hyperbolic scenarios.

 

So let me return the favor:

 

You want a special bathroom police that check vaginas and penises. Anyone's whose nuts don't match the birth certificate, they'll be jailed. I have a thing for masculine cops... I'll be more than happy to whip it out every time. How about you?

 

 

And also. Anyone can claim anything. I could kill someone and claim  temporary insanity. That doesn't make it so. You could claim to have 3 hands. It doesn't make it so. You could claim to identify as a lady, it doesn't make it so. Some people actually are transgender. 

I shudder everytime people use "conservatives" or "liberals" in this thread. 

[UPNoDa]

Wedge Brewing Co HB2 message on cans...where r u Charlotte?

http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/5/13/north-carolina-beer-company-protests-anti-lgbt-bill-fck-h8

[tusculan]

54 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

So you're sorry people like Skybutter go through lives of brutal discrimination, but your god says its justified and you ask your God to bless him?

 

Annoying things about conservatives. They use extremely hyperbolic scenarios.

 

So let me return the favor:

 

You want a special bathroom police that check vaginas and penises. Anyone's whose nuts don't match the birth certificate, they'll be jailed. I have a thing for masculine cops... I'll be more than happy to whip it out every time. How about you?

 

 

And also. Anyone can claim anything. I could kill someone and claim  temporary insanity. That doesn't make it so. You could claim to have 3 hands. It doesn't make it so. You could claim to identify as a lady, it doesn't make it so. Some people actually are transgender. 

Wow. So you don't really understand me at all. Ok.

first, I'm sorry not about discrimination principally, but the fact that this poor person feels not at home in his/her body. I thinks that's tragic. And no amount of telling them 'you be you' is going to help them with that psychological struggle. Way to go minimizing his/her pain.

secondly, you have no idea what being justified is. i think everyone suffers, some more than others. I don't think this is pleasing to God, or its ok, or anything like this. I think it fudgeing sucks. So don't try to bully me with your crap.

Thirdly, I don't want any police state enforcing bathroom rules. I think cops should be called if there is an incident and that's it. There was no need for a law about this, they have already been on the books. The Charlotte city council decided this nonissue is one that needed to be created. I very much don't want government anywhere near bathrooms, or any other public accommodations. But I don't think I have to allow anyone to use the bathroom of their preference. Having a bathroom may be a right, but which one you go to is not.

lastly, you make a strange claim that we're not dealing with what people claim, but people who are transgender. On what basis? If anatomy is useless in telling us what gender someone is, what basis is there in the real world for determining that someone is a 'actual' transgender?  If transgender is how one feels..... How is that different from someone who feels that they are innocent of a crime. One's personal feelings don't determine reality for everyone else. 

[15895]

If you can't make a distinction between someone who has a closet full of female clothes, whose parents friends and family and neighbors and employers verifies they identify by the opposite gender, pictures of themselves, social media that verifies they are transgender, psychologist and doctors saying they are transgendered .... vs. 14 year old Little Jimmy Jr. from Monroe NC who thought it would be fun to put on a wig and claim to identify as a woman to flash his penis to other 14 year old girls..... then you're just not going to get it. I can differentiate from little Jimmy Jr. claiming to be a girl to peep on little girls in a bathroom and a transgender female going to school dressed up like a girl, going by a girl name whose parents come in there with their transgender child, etc.

 

And regarding "no amount of telling them "you be you" is going to help them with their psychological problems" is beyond false. Not only is it false, it's opposite the truth. http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/Dignity_for_All_Report.pdf   There is a good, factual, and no John Miller BS that touches up on the subject.

[tusculan]

The difference between a boy who cross dresses poorly, one who does it well, and a man who does it well is different. By degree. Just like a child actor wouldn't be confused with Leo DiCaprio. But the difference is not in kind- they differ only to the degree in the number of steps they willfully go to pretend that their sex chromosomes aren't what they are, their epigenetic markers aren't programmed, and their hormones aren't correct.

 

also, if being transgender is to be celebrated rather than serve as a case of compassion:

a) why is there a high rate of gender assignment surgery regret: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/when-sex-change-is-a-mistake-some-transsexuals-suffer-bitter-regrets-sarah-lonsdale-reports-1512822.html

b) why do 40% attempt suicide after a surgery? http://waltheyer.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/20-regret-changing-genders-over-40attempt-suicide-and-even-after-surgery-a-large-number-remain-traum.html

I defy you to find another "medical" procedure where 40% are radically unhappy and 20% regret it.

 

maybe it's not as simple as cutting off somebody's sex organs and changing your name. Maybe DNA actually matters. And until we can change that, then people who suffer from this condition deserve our compassion--- which includes saying this is actually a problem.

[Neo]

While I enjoy a good Jerry Springer episode, I want to remind everyone that we're all adults here and can (hopefully) act like adults. HB2 is high controversial (obviously) and while it does warrant a discussion, please keep attacks and the like away from this site. That isn't what we're about. All threads on this site are voluntary which means you do not have to view or participate in them. If you can't handle a civil discussion about highly controversial topics, please stay away from this thread. I've had to warn and suspend a handful of individuals as a result of them not being civil. Let's keep it clean folks! 

[tusculan]

Neo, and everyone else, sorry about my tone. I appreciate a rational discussion, but realize that sometimes that's not possible with some. I originally began by wishing to voice my support for transgender people and their challenging lives, that I can't really fathom how difficult it is to live. Peace to all!

[Miesian Corners]

Can we please remember that HB2 is NOT just about which public toilet citizens may or may not use? A brief rundown of what HB2 does:

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.

[deleted]

On NPR on Friday evening, Governor McCrory claimed that he would have changed the bill considerably had he been able to utilize a line-item veto.  If that's the case (and I actually take him at his word on this), he should have vetoed it altogether.  He said that it's his intention to fix the flaws in the legislation in the next legislative session.  He also said that he didn't veto the bill because the ordinance in Charlotte was scheduled to take effect and he thought it was important to address the bathroom issue (why this was considered urgent I have no idea).  I doubt this is new to anyone here but the interview was on All Things Considered if anyone is interested.  Finally, I have no idea if proponents had the numbers to override a veto (this is easy to find but I'm sure some here know the breakdown already).     

[DMann]

Thank you Miesian Corners for a detailed look at what HB2 is actually about.

[ah59396]

10 hours ago, JBS said:

On NPR on Friday evening, Governor McCrory claimed that he would have changed the bill considerably had he been able to utilize a line-item veto.  If that's the case (and I actually take him at his word on this), he should have vetoed it altogether.  He said that it's his intention to fix the flaws in the legislation in the next legislative session.  He also said that he didn't veto the bill because the ordinance in Charlotte was scheduled to take effect and he thought it was important to address the bathroom issue (why this was considered urgent I have no idea).  I doubt this is new to anyone here but the interview was on All Things Considered if anyone is interested.  Finally, I have no idea if proponents had the numbers to override a veto (this is easy to find but I'm sure some here know the breakdown already).     

 

I don't buy it.  The bill got pushed through in a day and he signed it under the pressure of his GOP daddies behind closed doors.  I'd be stunned if he even read it.

 

Whatever we (Charlotteans) liked about McCrory, died the second he crawled into the city limits of Raleigh and turned into nothing more than a political puppet.  He absolutely cannot buckle now.  To do so would be political suicide.  This is an election year and he's well aware he's lost any chance at the moderate Democrat and/or most Independent votes.  To buckle on HB2 now would only net losses in the conservative vote and gain him virtually nothing in the D and I votes.  He can dress it up all he wants.  He's a lying sack of...well, ad lib at your leisure.

[DMann]

A real governor would have sent it back and said "fix these issues if you want my signature".  Only a puppet would have said "where do you want me to sign?"

[Nick2]

He's just backpeddling because he has an election to try to win. This was a grand gesture by the NC GOP to appease their furthest right supporters and specifically in response to Charlotte's own grand gesture with their ordinance. Whether or not you agree with either side, they're both just playing politics and I highly doubt many of either's politician supporters care about the actual content. 

I don't understand why they had to add in so much extra stuff into the "bathroom" bill. There is still an overwhelming majority of North Carolinians who believe people should have to use the bathroom associated with their sex rather than their gender.

New polling information on various proponents of the bill:

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/image_gallery/15637771/

[grodney]

41 minutes ago, Nick2 said:

....Whether or not you agree with either side, they're both just playing politics......

I don't understand why they had to add in so much extra stuff into the "bathroom" bill. There is still an overwhelming majority of North Carolinians who believe people should have to use the bathroom associated with their sex rather than their gender.

New polling information on various proponents of the bill:

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/image_gallery/15637771/

I don't see how you can say Charlotte (or Dems?) are playing politics.  The nondiscrimination ordinance failed over a year ago (in a non-election year), and was only passed after they got new council members to vote on it.  I mean, how were they playing politics or who were they trying to energize last year when it failed to pass?

I'm also not sure what you mean by "extra stuff".  If you haven't read it yet (and maybe you have), the Charmeck website has some good stuff including some FAQs: http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nondiscrimination/Pages/default.aspx

 

 

[Nick2]

I probably just don't know the laws on the books very well and don't know if it was technically illegal but before Charlotte passed the ordinance, weren't transgendered people already using the bathroom with which they identified? I'd like to retract my statement about both playing politics after reading extensively about the Charlotte ordinance. Theirs wasn't as much of a political statement (although still decidedly partisan) as the reactionary HB2 that the NC GOP passed. And it was much more so about overall anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people which happened to include bathrooms open to the public.

When I said extra stuff, I was talking about the HB2. I think we can all agree the bathroom part of the "bathroom bill" is only a small part of the overall stripping of anti-discrimination protections and reduction of local government power.

After reading the exact wording, people are allowed to use the bathroom based on their gender identity or their gender expression. In other words doesn't this mean that you don't have to look like the gender of the bathroom you're using? So anyone could say they identify as whatever gender they want to whenever they want to and use whichever bathroom they want to. I hasn't been shown to increase any issues with assault in bathrooms but the ordinance would make it legal for anyone to use either bathroom just because they say they're that gender at that time. I could see how some would use that to their advantage. A pervert could easily get their jollies from sitting in the women's bathroom. I remember a kid getting suspended in high school for hiding in the stall in the women's room and listening to girls use the restroom (not going into details but you could imagine what he was physically doing). It's not an issue of true transgender people using the bathroom of the gender that they truly identify with. It's that cisgender people could simply claim to identify one way or the other whenever they want. The law was too vague in my opinion.

[grodney]

Ah, I see on the "extra stuff"....sorry, I had read your post wrong and thought you were still talking about the Charlotte ordinance.  You said "bill" so I should have figured that out.  Agree on the "extra stuff" in HB2....I don't get it other than GOP being GOP and politics and whatnot.

[HopHead]

Maroon 5 is the latest music group to cancel shows in NC because of HB2. They were scheduled to play in Charlotte and Raleigh in September. NCGA and McCrory still hate money..

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article78823022.html

[deleted]

4 hours ago, HopHead said:

Maroon 5 is the latest music group to cancel shows in NC because of HB2. They were scheduled to play in Charlotte and Raleigh in September. NCGA and McCrory still hate money..

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article78823022.html

This follows cancellation by The Blue Man Group.  Have we heard from Pink?  Jackson Browne?  Red Hot Chili Peppers?  Green Day???

I find these cancellations almost as silly as the law that prompted them and the boycott of Target.  Presumably, their fans and the establishments that were hosting them don't support the law so why punish them?   

[nonillogical]

1 hour ago, JBS said:

Presumably, their fans and the establishments that were hosting them don't support the law so why punish them?   

We can't presume that. There might be a significant portion of their fanbase on the other side of the fence in support of HB2, and maybe learning of their idol's fervent opposition to it will make them pause and think about it. 

However, directly speaking to the fanbase is not really what the cancellations are about. These are mostly very high-turnout, A-list artists that are doing this, and they know that flexing their muscles on this sends a strong message and carries a strong indicator of public opinion/support, and helps keep the issue from slipping out of the news cycle. 

None of the concerts I'm attending this year have cancelled, but two mid-size venue national acts, whose stance is not likely to make even local news, are taking the donate to LGBT charity approach.  

[deleted]

"There might be a significant portion of their fanbase on the other side of the fence in support of HB2, and maybe learning of their idol's fervent opposition to it will make them pause and think about it."

I honestly can't imagine changing my position on a meaningful issue because a musician or athlete I enjoyed (for their music or playing skills) was on the opposite side.  If one changes their position because of new information, an evolved thought process, sympathy for those impacted, etc., I applaud them.  Changing it because someone you like disagrees would indicate that you aren't a serious person.  To be clear, that isn't precisely what you said (you indicated their opposition could prompt reflection).  I would hope people would consider alternative views from anyone simply because they found them meaningful.

[15895]

What I'm totally shocked about is prior to Donald Trump, the GOP loved Bush and to dare speak against the war in the Middle East was anti-American, blah blah blah.

 

A few months later. It seems generally accepted the Bushes are what's wrong and we should've never went to the Middle East to begin with.

Now THAT is such a rapid and opposite thought process I can't even comprehend. I'm still shocked by it.

 

The reason I mention that is because you'd be surprised at who changes their mind based on what their idols say.

 

 

 

[jednc]

On 5/20/2016 at 7:07 PM, AirNostrumMAD said:

What I'm totally shocked about is prior to Donald Trump, the GOP loved Bush and to dare speak against the war in the Middle East was anti-American, blah blah blah.

 

A few months later. It seems generally accepted the Bushes are what's wrong and we should've never went to the Middle East to begin with.

Now THAT is such a rapid and opposite thought process I can't even comprehend. I'm still shocked by it.

 

The reason I mention that is because you'd be surprised at who changes their mind based on what their idols say.

 

 

 

I think you are just proving JBS's point by saying people who like Trump are easily swayed into thinking anything (or changing their minds about the Bushes). Only a moron would change their views based on what a celebrity tells them to think, Trump supporters notwithstanding.

[15895]

I hope the CLT ordinance is repealed today to take a first step in compromising on hb2. The hrc is losing their ones over the idea, but so what? Our liberal allies have failed Charotte, Raleigh and Asheville in this fight against the NCGA and our allies are the reason we lost this fight 

[southslider]

^The only "allies" that have failed are the Chambers.

Fortunately, Council doesn't have the votes to override the Mayor's veto.

Civil rights are always expanded through struggle, not compromise.

[15895]

1 hour ago, southslider said:

^The only "allies" that have failed are the Chambers.

Fortunately, Council doesn't have the votes to override the Mayor's veto.

Civil rights are always expanded through struggle, not compromise.

I disagree. I think the chamber is trying to correct a mistake no one foresaw. 

 

The HRC is probably a key driver into pressuring companies from expanding and locating to CLT, Asheville and RDU. Rarely does Maroon 5 or other groups that are boycotting mention how Charlotte is a welcoming place. They would probably lose their minds if a company did a relocation here. And because of that, I think they let not only Charlotte down but the gay community here as well. There are plenty of ways to fight for LGBT rights. Punishing a city thats fighting for the same cause is just not productive to their cause. 

I say lets cave into Raleigh's demand and get back to business. It would be pound foolish to take a symbolic stand at this point. It's very apparent our good will doesn't mean anything to the HRC or anyone else.