NC Civil Rights

[jednc]

1 hour ago, DMann said:

Will Cleveland go one up on us:  http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/07/cleveland_to_adopt_transgender.html#incart_m-rpt-1

 

 

 

Wouldn't that just be putting them on par with (no one up on) Charlotte? Also, isn't Ohio one of the 10 states that have signed on to suing the Fed over the transgender bathroom mandate for schools, etc? So, wouldn't it be likely that Ohio's GA passes some sort of law blocking this city ordinance just like here in NC?

[kermit]

Not to stir the pot but the bill that prevents the public from accessing police video footage certainly seems relevant to this thread. 

Can anyone say 'developing pattern'? 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-13/north-carolina-law-blocks-release-of-police-video

 

[urbanlover568]

My feet are ready to run to the polls come November 

[deleted]

Not posting this as a for or against statement, simply that it's moderately interesting and the first such instance that I'm aware of this occurring anywhere.  Also interesting that the facts pertaining to the store are in dispute:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/13/transgender-woman-arrested-for-taking-pictures-in-target-changing-room/

 

 

[kermit]

.

[Dale]

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 4:00 PM, JBS said:

Not posting this as a for or against statement, simply that it's moderately interesting and the first such instance that I'm aware of this occurring anywhere.  Also interesting that the facts pertaining to the store are in dispute:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/13/transgender-woman-arrested-for-taking-pictures-in-target-changing-room/

 

 

Of course it wasn't a transgender woman. There's no such thing. LOL

[deleted]

I think (even vigorous) debate is healthy and I've learned a lot from people with opposing views.  Posting in this venue for sport and without a positive intent is wrong and a waste of time.  Hyper-partisanship demonstrates a lack of seriousness and intellectual capacity.  There are plenty of places on the internet where this is welcome.  This doesn't appear to be one of those places.

[Dale]

I know what you mean. Some dude called me a 'Pat supporter.'

[DMann]

We are losing focus on what is important in this bill, the right for a shopkeeper to refuse service to a classification of citizens.  This is legislated discrimination.  Peeing has little to do with this legislation.

[grodney]

1 hour ago, DMann said:

We are losing focus on what is important in this bill, the right for a shopkeeper to refuse service to a classification of citizens.  This is legislated discrimination.  Peeing has little to do with this legislation.

Agreed.  It's a travesty that you *can't* be discriminated against for your BELIEFS (winged horses, 72 virgins at death, talking snakes), but you *can* be discriminated against for how you were BORN.  And in ridiculous fashion, it is *exactly* those protected BELIEFS that are often the source of discrimination against the way you are born.

So here we have Charlotte, trying to be progressive and make sure we have protections in place against discrimination, and the GOP and their puppet McCrory somehow turn it into an issue of bathrooms.

[ES Charlotte]

1 hour ago, grodney said:

Agreed.  It's a travesty that you *can't* be discriminated against for your BELIEFS (winged horses, 72 virgins at death, talking snakes), but you *can* be discriminated against for how you were BORN.  And in ridiculous fashion, it is *exactly* those protected BELIEFS that are often the source of discrimination against the way you are born.

So here we have Charlotte, trying to be progressive and make sure we have protections in place against discrimination, and the GOP and their puppet McCrory somehow turn it into an issue of bathrooms.

Call me crazy... But I'm fairly certain HB2 allows for discrimination on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So that argument is a bit off. 

[grodney]

50 minutes ago, ES Charlotte said:

I'm fairly certain HB2 allows for discrimination on race, religion,

What?  Can you explain?

[ES Charlotte]

Sexual orientation was likely the target, but it's my understanding that you can discriminate on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap.

[grodney]

18 minutes ago, ES Charlotte said:

Sexual orientation was likely the target, but it's my understanding that you can discriminate on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap.

No, that's not right. 

[ES Charlotte]

21 minutes ago, grodney said:

No, that's not right. 

What is? I've read over it a good bit.

[rancenc]

1 hour ago, ES Charlotte said:

Sexual orientation was likely the target, but it's my understanding that you can discriminate on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap.

Initially the bill when first passed, did eliminate any opportunity to sue in STATE COURTS for employment discrimination that follows Title VII of Federal Law.  However in the recent short session of the state legislative, those rights were struck from the original HB2 law and reinstated.  As of now even Federal Civil Rights laws do not cover sexual orientation, even though Loretta Lynch as stated the law on Sex discrimination could apply.  I don't believe that has been any employment law applications on transgender people being discriminated at the work place (at least I haven't seen any case law studies in SHRM or any other human resources management publications.

[grodney]

Exactly....protections for race and religion were never removed (I mean that would be chaos!), only the ability to sue in state court for employment discrimination (which don't get me wrong, is still a big deal).

I mean, the protections I talked about above go back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and are echoed at state and local levels.  And I'm talking about employment, public accommodations, the whole shebang.

 

[RaleighHeelsfan]

So what is the issue now then? I thought that was the problem you all had?

So lets put this garbage to rest.

 

16 minutes ago, rancenc said:

Initially the bill when first passed, did eliminate any opportunity to sue in STATE COURTS for employment discrimination that follows Title VII of Federal Law.  However in the recent short session of the state legislative, those rights were struck from the original HB2 law and reinstated.  As of now even Federal Civil Rights laws do not cover sexual orientation, even though Loretta Lynch as stated the law on Sex discrimination could apply.  I don't believe that has been any employment law applications on transgender people being discriminated at the work place (at least I haven't seen any case law studies in SHRM or any other human resources management publications.

 

[ES Charlotte]

28 minutes ago, rancenc said:

Initially the bill when first passed, did eliminate any opportunity to sue in STATE COURTS for employment discrimination that follows Title VII of Federal Law.  However in the recent short session of the state legislative, those rights were struck from the original HB2 law and reinstated.  As of now even Federal Civil Rights laws do not cover sexual orientation, even though Loretta Lynch as stated the law on Sex discrimination could apply.  I don't believe that has been any employment law applications on transgender people being discriminated at the work place (at least I haven't seen any case law studies in SHRM or any other human resources management publications.

agreed on the right to sue, but as stated it's back in play so I don't get it.

5 hours ago, DMann said:

We are losing focus on what is important in this bill, the right for a shopkeeper to refuse service to a classification of citizens.  This is legislated discrimination.  Peeing has little to do with this legislation.

This is what brought up my point about covering race, religion, sexual orientation, etc... If it's a double edged sword, who cares? 

I've really struggled with the whole concept of this bill and leaned toward agreeing with you for some time, but after provoking my mind for months I've leaned towards being able to discriminate with your private business. I own my own business and don't know that I ever want to feel obligated to do work for anyone. And I support that claim right back at myself as a consumer. If the business doesn't want my business and they openly discriminate, go for it!  As a result they are greatly improving their chance of business failure down the road, but hey... that's their prerogative. 

BTW... I don't discriminate as a private business owner :-)

The bathroom portion is different can of worms that I'm not getting into.

[grodney]

28 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

So what is the issue now then? I thought that was the problem you all had?

So lets put this garbage to rest.

 

 

It's not garbage, it's discrimination.

Charlotte tried to add some protected classes to their nondiscrimination ordinance, as have hundreds of progressive cities in the U.S.

HB2 struck down Charlotte's expanded protection, as well as adding a bunch of other bad stuff (inability to sue for employment discrimination (of any kind!) in state court, no local override of minimum wage, etc.).

Specifically regarding public accommodations, the Charmeck FAQ states:

"

The Charlotte City Council adopted a non-discrimination in places of public accommodations ordinance in 1968. The ordinance prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodations based on race, color, religion, and national origin. The City later extended non-discrimination protections based on sex. Amendments approved by the City Council in 2016 expand non-discrimination protections to include marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. These amendments are effective April 1, 2016.

"

 

7 minutes ago, ES Charlotte said:

This is what brought up my point about covering race, religion, sexual orientation, etc... If it's a double edged sword, who cares? 

I've really struggled with the whole concept of this bill and leaned toward agreeing with you for some time, but after provoking my mind for months I've leaned towards being able to discriminate with your private business. I own my own business and don't know that I ever want to feel obligated to do work for anyone. And I support that claim right back at myself as a consumer. If the business doesn't want my business and they openly discriminate, go for it!  As a result they are greatly improving their chance of business failure down the road, but hey... that's their prerogative. 

There's no double-edge sword, whatever you mean by that.

A shop-keeper can't (legally) discriminate due to race.  Or religion (i.e. beliefs in flying horses, 72 virgins, talking snakes, etc.).  A shop-keeper CAN legally discriminate due to sexual orientation or gender identity.  And as I said, it's a travesty that this is true in our city, nevermind the whole country (except where local laws exist and haven't been struck down by ignorant legislatures).

By the way, we as a nation tried the "a private business should be able to discriminate if they want".  It was pretty ugly.  

 

[ES Charlotte]

6 minutes ago, grodney said:

It's not garbage, it's discrimination.

Charlotte tried to add some protected classes to their nondiscrimination ordinance, as have hundreds of progressive cities in the U.S.

HB2 struck down Charlotte's expanded protection, as well as adding a bunch of other bad stuff (inability to sue for employment discrimination (of any kind!) in state court, no local override of minimum wage, etc.).

Specifically regarding public accommodations, the Charmeck FAQ states:

"

The Charlotte City Council adopted a non-discrimination in places of public accommodations ordinance in 1968. The ordinance prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodations based on race, color, religion, and national origin. The City later extended non-discrimination protections based on sex. Amendments approved by the City Council in 2016 expand non-discrimination protections to include marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. These amendments are effective April 1, 2016.

"

 

There's no double-edge sword, whatever you mean by that.

A shop-keeper can't (legally) discriminate due to race.  Or religion (i.e. beliefs in flying horses, 72 virgins, talking snakes, etc.).  A shop-keeper CAN legally discriminate due to sexual orientation or gender identity. 

By the way, we as a nation tried the "a private business should be able to discriminate if they want".  It was pretty ugly.  

 

All of my conversation is in reference to HB2 as a law and HB2 only. And that is a double edged sword. 

Do you own your own business? (15 employees or less) 

[grodney]

1 minute ago, ES Charlotte said:

All of my conversation is in reference to HB2 as a law and HB2 only. And that is a double edged sword. 

Do you own your own business? (15 employees or less) 

I have no idea what you're talking about.....I'm only talking about HB2 as well.  So I'll just stop now.

 

[ES Charlotte]

2 minutes ago, grodney said:

I have no idea what you're talking about.....I'm only talking about HB2 as well.  So I'll just stop now.

 

Where is that protection vs the other in the law? I'm asking because I'd like to read it.

We can't have a cordial debate? I don't believe I've been rude.

[grodney]

7 minutes ago, ES Charlotte said:

Where is that protection vs the other in the law? I'm asking because I'd like to read it.

We can't have a cordial debate? I don't believe I've been rude.

I'm fine discussing.  No, you haven't been rude.  We're just somehow talking about 2 different things while talking about the same thing....because I don't even know what you're asking in your first question.

Federal and local nondiscrimination makes it illegal for a shopkeeper to discriminate based on race or religion, i.e. Johnny BusinessOwner can't hang out a NO BLACKS sign.  But sexual orientation does NOT have that protection, i.e. Johnny BusinessOwner CAN hang out a NO GAYS sign.  Charlotte tried to add protection so that can't happen.  HB2 struck that down.  I don't know how to explain it any differently than that.  As DMann said "We are losing focus on what is important in this bill, the right for a shopkeeper to refuse service to a classification of citizens.".  In other words, HB2 allows discrimination against gays because it strikes down Charlotte's expansion to include them.

Ha ha, guess I didn't stop!

 

[ES Charlotte]

4 minutes ago, grodney said:

I'm fine discussing.  No, you haven't been rude.  We're just somehow talking about 2 different things while talking about the same thing....because I don't even know what you're asking in your first question.

Federal and local nondiscrimination makes it illegal for a shopkeeper to discriminate based on race or religion, i.e. Johnny BusinessOwner can't hang out a NO BLACKS sign.  But sexual orientation does NOT have that protection, i.e. Johnny BusinessOwner CAN hang out a NO GAYS sign.  Charlotte tried to add protection so that can't happen.  HB2 struck that down.  I don't know how to explain it any differently than that.  As DMann said "We are losing focus on what is important in this bill, the right for a shopkeeper to refuse service to a classification of citizens.".  In other words, HB2 allows discrimination against gays because it strikes down Charlotte's expansion to include them.

Ha ha, guess I didn't stop!

 

haha glad you didn't

So technically this is not stated in the bill. BUT striking down local governments ability to change law does in affect enact federal law that does.. Which bodes the question... If there's such an uproar over NC, where is the backlash on the federal government?