(07-05-2017 02:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 02:30 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 11:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:40 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Well, this is actually something the Federal government has a completely legitimate point in getting involved in.

Remember that little thing about interstate commerce?

That's what this is about.

All this stupidity about discrimination is just that, stupidity.

I think that the ICC might have some views on discrimination too. Not sure you want to open up that can of worms if you support the discriminatory bills.

To answer the previous posters question, NC is still on the list because HB2 still is in substantial effect. The 'solution' left in place a ban on protecting LGBT persons from discrimination. It was a full throated affirmation and endorsement of discrimination by the NC legislature.

Wow, for someone who admonished everyone to "not make this political" at the start of this thread, you sure haven't shied away from making it political.

What do you expect from a typical liberal loon from California? It is always do as I say, and I can do whatever I want as the rule only applies to peons who don't agree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In fairness to him, he wanted to have a conversation about the issue--one where he controlled the bounds of it. You know, the kind of conversation where only buzzwords and disingenuous explanations are allowed--the kind of conversation where you not so secretly just get bombarded with bull****.

Don't believe me? See the post to Coog and every subsequent one brushing up on it.

Disingenuous post by disingenuous poster is disingenuous.

For the record, Coog actually make a patently political post attempting to call this somehow religious discrimination on the part of California.

I've found you to be personally rather passive aggressive. Its like expert level. You have a patently political viewpoint too.

These are the facts

1) States ARE passing laws clearly targeting the LGBT community that clearly affirm discriminatory treatment towards LGBT persons.

2) California has passed a law that prohibits state funding for travel and contracting for events where its citizens or employees will face discrimination. This bill, in no way, has anything to do with religious discrimination. It even allows Cal to schedule a game at Liberty.

3) This bill might impact conference realignment.

---

You and I hold different viewpoints. But my viewpoint is probably similar to that of those in California. And its a valid one on here, because that's one of the viewpoints driving this issue. And will remain a salient one. The OP is one that voices the views of those who put up the bill. You are free to put up your interpretation with all the buzzwords and whooey you'd like.

But you rarely bother with discussing the merits on demerits on issues. You seem to just insult me. You are free to bring up your legal opinion as to the legality of the Assembly Bill or the AG's interpretation. You haven't done it. Come on man, show off your training. I'd love to see how you try to shoehorn the ICC into requiring California to use taxpayer dollars to ship LGBT people to Texas so they can be discriminated against.

BTW, I'm perfectly able to understand your arguments. I think I know where you were trained.

Perhaps you should consider contributing to the discussion rather than simply insulting anyone who has a viewpoint that doesn't mesh with yours.