(04-12-2016 02:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Gov. McCrory Issues Executive Order re: HB2

Quote:Expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity

Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination

That should stop all the belly-aching.

What happened to the protections for LGBT persons in private employment in 12 NC cities? 95% percent of LGBT persons work in the private sector. 99% percent if this executive order doesn't cover state contractors. I'll bet it doesn't.

All it does is amplifies the fact that LGBT persons can be fired simply for being Gay in NC. In all but 1-5% of jobs in the state.

Why bother with allowing people to sue in state court for discrimination if you're going to make discrimination legal? Oh.....that's just for straight folks.
---

I just read the executive order. There's nothing in it to stop the outrage. It still allows private businesses to fire people because they're LGBT. It doesn't mandate equal access to public accommodations. It sets up a Human Relations Commission (probably comprised with anti-Gays like Flip Benham, Franklin Graham, etc.) to 86 discrimination complaints.

---

So the impact of SB 2 and the Executive Order is that

1) In 12 cities, 95-99% of LGBT persons can be fired simply because they are Gay. Or denied housing. Or denied public accommodations.
2) There is still no mandated access (much less equal access) for Trans persons to use restrooms
3) There is no protection for LGBT persons in public accommodations or housing

---

But at least we know the outrage is hurting the NC GOP. They're nuts if they think this is going to calm people down.

(04-12-2016 11:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, what's wrong with an ordinance that addresses things like employment discrimination but doesn't say anything that could be construed as opening restrooms to whomever? Why can't both sides agree to that?

Why do you have to talk about bathrooms in order to address employment discrimination?

Beats me.

I'm pretty sure the only side that would not is Toms

(04-12-2016 02:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Gov. McCrory Issues Executive Order re: HB2

Quote:Expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity

Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination

That should stop all the belly-aching.

What happened to the protections for LGBT persons in private employment in 12 NC cities? 95% percent of LGBT persons work in the private sector. 99% percent if this executive order doesn't cover state contractors. I'll bet it doesn't.

All it does is amplifies the fact that LGBT persons can be fired simply for being Gay in NC. In all but 1-5% of jobs in the state.

Why bother with allowing people to sue in state court for discrimination if you're going to make discrimination legal? Oh.....that's just for straight folks.
---

I just read the executive order. There's nothing in it to stop the outrage. It still allows private businesses to fire people because they're LGBT. It doesn't mandate equal access to public accommodations. It sets up a Human Relations Commission (probably comprised with anti-Gays like Flip Benham, Franklin Graham, etc.) to 86 discrimination complaints.

---

So the impact of SB 2 and the Executive Order is that

1) In 12 cities, 95-99% of LGBT persons can be fired simply because they are Gay. Or denied housing. Or denied public accommodations.
2) There is still no mandated access (much less equal access) for Trans persons to use restrooms
3) There is no protection for LGBT persons in public accommodations or housing

---

But at least we know the outrage is hurting the NC GOP. They're nuts if they think this is going to calm people down.

It's no different than before the Charlotte ordinance. sexual orientation was not a protected class then. Where was your protests before the charlotte ordinance was passed or when it was voted down last year?

(04-12-2016 03:06 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Gov. McCrory Issues Executive Order re: HB2

Quote:Expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity

Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination

That should stop all the belly-aching.

What happened to the protections for LGBT persons in private employment in 12 NC cities? 95% percent of LGBT persons work in the private sector. 99% percent if this executive order doesn't cover state contractors. I'll bet it doesn't.

All it does is amplifies the fact that LGBT persons can be fired simply for being Gay in NC. In all but 1-5% of jobs in the state.

Why bother with allowing people to sue in state court for discrimination if you're going to make discrimination legal? Oh.....that's just for straight folks.
---

I just read the executive order. There's nothing in it to stop the outrage. It still allows private businesses to fire people because they're LGBT. It doesn't mandate equal access to public accommodations. It sets up a Human Relations Commission (probably comprised with anti-Gays like Flip Benham, Franklin Graham, etc.) to 86 discrimination complaints.

---

So the impact of SB 2 and the Executive Order is that

1) In 12 cities, 95-99% of LGBT persons can be fired simply because they are Gay. Or denied housing. Or denied public accommodations.
2) There is still no mandated access (much less equal access) for Trans persons to use restrooms
3) There is no protection for LGBT persons in public accommodations or housing

---

But at least we know the outrage is hurting the NC GOP. They're nuts if they think this is going to calm people down.

It's no different than before the Charlotte ordinance. sexual orientation was not a protected class then. Where was your protests before the charlotte ordinance was passed or when it was voted down last year?

There were 12 other North Carolina cities that had ordinances. Some of them had been in effect for decades. It's still 'open season' on LGBT persons in North Carolina.

Why protest if you're working to fix the problem through the City Council? We had a resolution path in Charlotte. Now we don't. And unless LGBT persons aren't gerrymandered out of a voice (I'll bet they are) don't ask us to just wait until a ridiculous gerrymandered GOP legislature changes the state law back. We're not waiting 500 years.

Seriously, this is more spin than a fix. But McCrory is free to try and sell it. He's going to find few buyers in the convention or business community.

(04-12-2016 03:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There were 12 other North Carolina cities that had ordinances.

And those 12 along with Charlotte were in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

(04-12-2016 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There were 12 other North Carolina cities that had ordinances.

And those 12 along with Charlotte were in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

Don't waste your breath. The 360 must bow down before the 9. There is no such thing as equality to some of them.

LOL. The National Center for Transgender Equality just made quick work of McCrory's new order.

'So transgendered state employees are protected from discrimination, but they still can't use the restroom at work'.

---

So what is the definition of reasonable if there's a state facility with only two restrooms? Or two locker rooms? Throw everyone out of the changing room because 'the pejorative' needs to use it?

---

Where is the mandate for equal access? No where.

(04-12-2016 03:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There were 12 other North Carolina cities that had ordinances.

And those 12 along with Charlotte were in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

Don't waste your breath. The 360 must bow down before the 9. There is no such thing as equality to some of them.

All we demand is the same employment and public accommodations protections provided to Baptists in North Carolina. No more. No less.

Equality is not 'Baptists get to fire us for being Gay, but we cannot fire you for being Baptist'.

And since the NC legislature would NEVER remove protections for them, equality demands that they add them for us.

Equality means equal treatment. Even if they aren't 50% plus 1.

(04-12-2016 03:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There were 12 other North Carolina cities that had ordinances.

And those 12 along with Charlotte were in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

Don't waste your breath. The 360 must bow down before the 9. There is no such thing as equality to some of them.

All we demand is the same employment and public accommodations protections provided to Baptists in North Carolina. No more. No less.

Equality is not 'Baptists get to fire us for being Gay, but we cannot fire you for being Baptist'.

And since the NC legislature would NEVER remove protections for them, equality demands that they add them for us.

Equality means equal treatment. Even if they aren't 50% plus 1.

why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

(04-12-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There were 12 other North Carolina cities that had ordinances.

And those 12 along with Charlotte were in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

Don't waste your breath. The 360 must bow down before the 9. There is no such thing as equality to some of them.

All we demand is the same employment and public accommodations protections provided to Baptists in North Carolina. No more. No less.

Equality is not 'Baptists get to fire us for being Gay, but we cannot fire you for being Baptist'.

And since the NC legislature would NEVER remove protections for them, equality demands that they add them for us.

Equality means equal treatment. Even if they aren't 50% plus 1.

why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

You can fire someone for being straight in North Carolina now.

But in practice straight persons never get fired for being straight.

What's more likely is that LGBT persons are discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and employment by evangelicals. So I simply picked one group that might discriminate against LGBT persons and used that as my example.

And discrimination against LGBT persons is still a real thing. Especially in education, hospitals/medical care, and social work employment. And that includes jobs funded by the taxpayers.

(04-12-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There were 12 other North Carolina cities that had ordinances.

And those 12 along with Charlotte were in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

Don't waste your breath. The 360 must bow down before the 9. There is no such thing as equality to some of them.

All we demand is the same employment and public accommodations protections provided to Baptists in North Carolina. No more. No less.

Equality is not 'Baptists get to fire us for being Gay, but we cannot fire you for being Baptist'.

And since the NC legislature would NEVER remove protections for them, equality demands that they add them for us.

Equality means equal treatment. Even if they aren't 50% plus 1.

why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

They can probably fire Baptists for being Baptists. In employment at will states, they can fire people for any reason they want as long as it is not a protected class.

I don't want more protected classes, especially when it gets into your private life as opposed to obvious external things such as skin shade and disability. I don't want to have a box on an employment application asking about my sexual habits. They want us to have that, but employers can't have a box asking if they have committed a felony.

(04-12-2016 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  And those 12 along with Charlotte were in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.

Don't waste your breath. The 360 must bow down before the 9. There is no such thing as equality to some of them.

All we demand is the same employment and public accommodations protections provided to Baptists in North Carolina. No more. No less.

Equality is not 'Baptists get to fire us for being Gay, but we cannot fire you for being Baptist'.

And since the NC legislature would NEVER remove protections for them, equality demands that they add them for us.

Equality means equal treatment. Even if they aren't 50% plus 1.

why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

You can fire someone for being straight in North Carolina now.

But in practice straight persons never get fired for being straight.

What's more likely is that LGBT persons are discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and employment by evangelicals. So I simply picked one group that might discriminate against LGBT persons and used that as my example.

And discrimination against LGBT persons is still a real thing. Especially in education, hospitals/medical care, and social work employment. And that includes jobs funded by the taxpayers.

Awesome, then the lgbt community has equal protections to straight people. What's your beef?

(04-12-2016 03:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Don't waste your breath. The 360 must bow down before the 9. There is no such thing as equality to some of them.

All we demand is the same employment and public accommodations protections provided to Baptists in North Carolina. No more. No less.

Equality is not 'Baptists get to fire us for being Gay, but we cannot fire you for being Baptist'.

And since the NC legislature would NEVER remove protections for them, equality demands that they add them for us.

Equality means equal treatment. Even if they aren't 50% plus 1.

why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

You can fire someone for being straight in North Carolina now.

But in practice straight persons never get fired for being straight.

What's more likely is that LGBT persons are discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and employment by evangelicals. So I simply picked one group that might discriminate against LGBT persons and used that as my example.

And discrimination against LGBT persons is still a real thing. Especially in education, hospitals/medical care, and social work employment. And that includes jobs funded by the taxpayers.

Awesome, then the lgbt community has equal protections to straight people. What's your beef?

We still can be fired for being Gay. And in practice, the employment discrimination that we face comes largely from evangelicals. So equality would be this

If Evangelicals are protected, then so should LGBT persons. Period. That's equality.

Wow, this thread is filled with all sorts of anecdotal comments and grand generalizations.

Oh the Trans...they are so bad off and have no right to pee....Mean Mean evangelicals, the protected ones.

(04-12-2016 03:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  All we demand is the same employment and public accommodations protections provided to Baptists in North Carolina. No more. No less.

Equality is not 'Baptists get to fire us for being Gay, but we cannot fire you for being Baptist'.

And since the NC legislature would NEVER remove protections for them, equality demands that they add them for us.

Equality means equal treatment. Even if they aren't 50% plus 1.

why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

You can fire someone for being straight in North Carolina now.

But in practice straight persons never get fired for being straight.

What's more likely is that LGBT persons are discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and employment by evangelicals. So I simply picked one group that might discriminate against LGBT persons and used that as my example.

And discrimination against LGBT persons is still a real thing. Especially in education, hospitals/medical care, and social work employment. And that includes jobs funded by the taxpayers.

Awesome, then the lgbt community has equal protections to straight people. What's your beef?

We still can be fired for being Gay. And in practice, the employment discrimination that we face comes largely from evangelicals. So equality would be this

If Evangelicals are protected, then so should LGBT persons. Period. That's equality.

So do you want equal treatment based on religion or on sexual orientation? I'm starting to get confused.

(04-12-2016 02:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Because they can't pass a bill to remove employment protections against LGBT persons unless they scare people by scapegoating Trans persons. Pretty much all the anti-Gays have to work with.

How does that apply to, for example, the Houston ordinance?

The bottom line is that neither side can pass a law to do anything without having to talk about bathrooms. Because that's the only issue that they can get people riled up enough to care about. The reality is that employment discrimination against gays is pretty non-existent, so nobody on either side much gives a care about it. But bathrooms, you can get people worked up over bathrooms.

As I say, let's pass something that addresses employment discrimination and such, but leaves bathrooms up to the person who owns the bathroom. Some people will allow trannies to use the bathroom of their choice, and they will get the tranny business. Some people will require them to use the bathroom of their plumbing, and they will get the business of everyone else.

And don't go having a hissy fit about my use of the term tranny/trannies. I know some people who are trannies, and that's the term they use to self-describe.

I'm sure they'd love to hear you talk about them that way. You probably haven't spoken with them in a while.

Employment discrimination against LGBT persons is more common than you think. Especially in healthcare, education and social work (even using taxpayer grants and funding).

The impact of your 'solution' of simply allowing businesses to deny Trans persons public accommodations is not really workable. Hey, you're at the mall..and need to pee. But the mall doesn't allow Trans persons to use the facilities there. I guess you can just wet yourself in the middle of the Food Court. No humiliation there, right? And how are Trans persons to know before wasting money on gas to go to a place that it is open for their business?

The state has an interest in having Trans persons employed and active in the economy. That is dramatically hampered if they can't function in society.

Who's the "mall"? And you'd have us believe that they have hall or bathroom monitors checking people out as they head to the can, so as to deny a trans walking into one bathroom or the other?!?

I'd bet that's happened about never, except maybe in some highly publicized or intentional set-up sting job. Someone making it quite obvious what they were doing in order to make their "point" whatever that may be.

More manufactured OUTRAGE!!! over something that basically doesn't exist. Another solution in search of a problem.

And people with real responsibilities waste their time on this stupidity. No wonder we're falling apart at the seams...

(04-12-2016 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

You can fire someone for being straight in North Carolina now.

But in practice straight persons never get fired for being straight.

What's more likely is that LGBT persons are discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and employment by evangelicals. So I simply picked one group that might discriminate against LGBT persons and used that as my example.

And discrimination against LGBT persons is still a real thing. Especially in education, hospitals/medical care, and social work employment. And that includes jobs funded by the taxpayers.

Awesome, then the lgbt community has equal protections to straight people. What's your beef?

We still can be fired for being Gay. And in practice, the employment discrimination that we face comes largely from evangelicals. So equality would be this

If Evangelicals are protected, then so should LGBT persons. Period. That's equality.

So do you want equal treatment based on religion or on sexual orientation? I'm starting to get confused.

I want the same protections that cover evangelicals to cover LGBT persons. Its discriminatory that they can (and do) discriminate against us in private commercial employment and service provision while enjoying special protections not extended to the LGBT community.

Your intended 'argument' is risible. That there's no unequal treatment because the majority straight population could be discriminated against. The fact is they aren't and will never be. It actually makes my point. Some sexual orientations don't experience discrimination, some do. Some religious groups' followers don't experience discrimination, some do. Therefore, both religion and sexual orientation should be covered in non-discrimination laws.

Look, you can continue to support people being fired or not hired from jobs in North Carolina because they are LGBT. I suspect there are people in this forum that support that.

But don't be surprised when people see through that very thin veneer of an argument you are making. And treat it with a roll of their eyes and cheerlead the next business pulling out or concert/convention cancelled.

By tomorrow this pathetic attempt at spin will be roundly panned by everyone. No one is going to lift their travel bans. Deutsche Bank and PayPal aren't going to reinstate the jobs as a result of this.

(04-12-2016 04:17 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can fire someone for being straight in North Carolina now.

But in practice straight persons never get fired for being straight.

What's more likely is that LGBT persons are discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and employment by evangelicals. So I simply picked one group that might discriminate against LGBT persons and used that as my example.

And discrimination against LGBT persons is still a real thing. Especially in education, hospitals/medical care, and social work employment. And that includes jobs funded by the taxpayers.

Awesome, then the lgbt community has equal protections to straight people. What's your beef?

We still can be fired for being Gay. And in practice, the employment discrimination that we face comes largely from evangelicals. So equality would be this

If Evangelicals are protected, then so should LGBT persons. Period. That's equality.

So do you want equal treatment based on religion or on sexual orientation? I'm starting to get confused.

I want the same protections that cover evangelicals to cover LGBT persons.

Please show me those protections that cover evangelicals that don't apply to LGBT people.

(04-12-2016 04:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  why Baptists? Why not the same employment and public accommodations as straight people?

You can fire someone for being straight in North Carolina now.

But in practice straight persons never get fired for being straight.

What's more likely is that LGBT persons are discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and employment by evangelicals. So I simply picked one group that might discriminate against LGBT persons and used that as my example.

And discrimination against LGBT persons is still a real thing. Especially in education, hospitals/medical care, and social work employment. And that includes jobs funded by the taxpayers.

Awesome, then the lgbt community has equal protections to straight people. What's your beef?

We still can be fired for being Gay. And in practice, the employment discrimination that we face comes largely from evangelicals. So equality would be this

If Evangelicals are protected, then so should LGBT persons. Period. That's equality.

So do you want equal treatment based on religion or on sexual orientation? I'm starting to get confused.

Nothing to be confused about, he just made it perfectly clear (as if it wasn't already)-

Gay IS his religion. Simple as that.

NOTHING less than bowing totally to every demand these gencons(gender confused) want will ever satisfy them. That is just the way it is. Nothing the Governor can ever say beyond that will make them happy. They are already miserable human beings that hate themselves. You would have to personally lead them into the bathroom scatter rose petals on the floor at their feet... to make them happy.