(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. 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.

So lgbt and straight have the same protections and it's not enough. That's what you are saying isn't it? Discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on religion are two different things.

(04-12-2016 05:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(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:  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.

So lgbt and straight have the same protections and it's not enough. That's what you are saying isn't it? Discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on religion are two different things.

You don't get it. If there's discrimination it should be banned. Period.

FWIW, I have an old friend who's transgender. Started life as a girl and is now a dude. Believe me when I tell you you do NOT want him using the ladies' room.

(04-12-2016 06:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 05:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(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:  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.

So lgbt and straight have the same protections and it's not enough. That's what you are saying isn't it? Discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on religion are two different things.

You don't get it. If there's discrimination it should be banned. Period.

Where isn't it banned? lgbt is now a protected class, so discrimination is illegal, or to use your words banned. Period.

(04-12-2016 07:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  FWIW, I have an old friend who's transgender. Started life as a girl and is now a dude. Believe me when I tell you you do NOT want him using the ladies' room.

This point seems to plum evade the people that support the law.

(04-12-2016 07:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 06:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 05:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

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

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

So lgbt and straight have the same protections and it's not enough. That's what you are saying isn't it? Discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on religion are two different things.

You don't get it. If there's discrimination it should be banned. Period.

Where isn't it banned? lgbt is now a protected class, so discrimination is illegal, or to use your words banned. Period.

If a hotel refuses to rent a room to someone because they are Mormon, or Baptist, or Jewish, that is illegal under NC law. If they refuse to rent a room to someone because they are Gay, that is LEGAL under NC law.

What protections do LGBT persons have in NC? Certainly not in private employment. Housing? Nope. Public accommodations? 1000% No.

It is true that LGBT persons had some protections in some NC cities before SB 2 passed. Now, as far as I can tell, they have virtually none.

Please let me know what 'protections' the LGBT community has in NC.

---

And before you give me that 'at will' BS, please note that the NC GOP didn't try to get rid of all employment and public accommodations protections, they got rid of only those that protected LGBT persons. They still kept those protections that protected their base (the religious right) from discrimination.

Another public entity is hurting the citizens of North Carolina because of this law. I just read a story that said a porn website is going to start blocking people from North Carolina from using its site (I'm not going to provide the name because I don't want to be banned but the site begins with an X)

(04-12-2016 07:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  FWIW, I have an old friend who's transgender. Started life as a girl and is now a dude. Believe me when I tell you you do NOT want him using the ladies' room.

So is he a deviant or something? I've not heard any stories of 'real' trans people causing issues since they sincerely believe they are the sex they have changed to.

(04-12-2016 07:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  FWIW, I have an old friend who's transgender. Started life as a girl and is now a dude. Believe me when I tell you you do NOT want him using the ladies' room.

Care to explain?

(04-12-2016 05:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(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:  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.

So lgbt and straight have the same protections and it's not enough. That's what you are saying isn't it? Discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on religion are two different things.

Unless sexual orientation is your religion…

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Where isn't it banned? lgbt is now a protected class, so discrimination is illegal, or to use your words banned. Period.

If a hotel refuses to rent a room to someone because they are Mormon, or Baptist, or Jewish, that is illegal under NC law. If they refuse to rent a room to someone because they are Gay, that is LEGAL under NC law.

It was legal prior to the passing of Charlotte's ordinance. Nothing has changed. There are other states with similar laws and last I checked there haven't been any stories of hotels refusing to rent rooms to gays or bakers refusing to make wedding cakes in NC. You are searching for a problem here where one does not exist.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What protections do LGBT persons have in NC? Certainly not in private employment. Housing? Nope. Public accommodations? 1000% No.

Same as straight people. lgbt is now a protected class. State equal employment opportunity has been expanded to include sexual orientation and identity. Still have to use the mens room if you were born a man and the womens if you were born a woman.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is true that LGBT persons had some protections in some NC cities before SB 2 passed. Now, as far as I can tell, they have virtually none.

cities can set their own as long as it does not extend beyond the state laws or force private businesses to comply. Private businesses are free to set their own policies.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please let me know what 'protections' the LGBT community has in NC.

---

And before you give me that 'at will' BS, please note that the NC GOP didn't try to get rid of all employment and public accommodations protections, they got rid of only those that protected LGBT persons. They still kept those protections that protected their base (the religious right) from discrimination.

You are talking about religious discrimination and sexual orientation/identity as if they are the same thing. They aren't.

Who/why would someone write in their religion, sexual proclivities or mental illness and elective surgeries on a hotel registration.

(04-13-2016 07:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Where isn't it banned? lgbt is now a protected class, so discrimination is illegal, or to use your words banned. Period.

If a hotel refuses to rent a room to someone because they are Mormon, or Baptist, or Jewish, that is illegal under NC law. If they refuse to rent a room to someone because they are Gay, that is LEGAL under NC law.

It was legal prior to the passing of Charlotte's ordinance. Nothing has changed. There are other states with similar laws and last I checked there haven't been any stories of hotels refusing to rent rooms to gays or bakers refusing to make wedding cakes in NC. You are searching for a problem here where one does not exist.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What protections do LGBT persons have in NC? Certainly not in private employment. Housing? Nope. Public accommodations? 1000% No.

Same as straight people. lgbt is now a protected class. State equal employment opportunity has been expanded to include sexual orientation and identity. Still have to use the mens room if you were born a man and the womens if you were born a woman.

TAKING AWAY PROTECTIONS FOR 99% OF LGBT NORTH CAROLINIANS AN PLACING PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR 1% ISN'T REALLY 'PROTECTING' NORTH CAROLINIANS. ITS LAUGHABLE FOR YOU TO ARGUE THAT. FEEL FREE TO CONTINUE TO DO SO IF YOU WISH. BUT NO ONE IS BUYING IT.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is true that LGBT persons had some protections in some NC cities before SB 2 passed. Now, as far as I can tell, they have virtually none.

cities can set their own as long as it does not extend beyond the state laws or force private businesses to comply. Private businesses are free to set their own policies.

THE IMPACT OF SB 2 IS A MASSIVE DOWNGRADE TO PROTECTIONS FOR LGBT PERSONS IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF EMPLOYMENT. AND NOT ONLY IN CHARLOTTE. IN OTHER CITIES IN NC TOO. SO ITS RISIBLE FOR YOU TO ARGUE THAT LGBT PERSONS HAVEN'T LOST PROTECTIONS. THEY HAVE.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please let me know what 'protections' the LGBT community has in NC.

---

And before you give me that 'at will' BS, please note that the NC GOP didn't try to get rid of all employment and public accommodations protections, they got rid of only those that protected LGBT persons. They still kept those protections that protected their base (the religious right) from discrimination.

You are talking about religious discrimination and sexual orientation/identity as if they are the same thing. They aren't.

DISCRIMINATION IS THE SAME THING.

My comments in ALL CAPS

(04-13-2016 09:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Where isn't it banned? lgbt is now a protected class, so discrimination is illegal, or to use your words banned. Period.

If a hotel refuses to rent a room to someone because they are Mormon, or Baptist, or Jewish, that is illegal under NC law. If they refuse to rent a room to someone because they are Gay, that is LEGAL under NC law.

It was legal prior to the passing of Charlotte's ordinance. Nothing has changed. There are other states with similar laws and last I checked there haven't been any stories of hotels refusing to rent rooms to gays or bakers refusing to make wedding cakes in NC. You are searching for a problem here where one does not exist.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What protections do LGBT persons have in NC? Certainly not in private employment. Housing? Nope. Public accommodations? 1000% No.

Same as straight people. lgbt is now a protected class. State equal employment opportunity has been expanded to include sexual orientation and identity. Still have to use the mens room if you were born a man and the womens if you were born a woman.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is true that LGBT persons had some protections in some NC cities before SB 2 passed. Now, as far as I can tell, they have virtually none.

cities can set their own as long as it does not extend beyond the state laws or force private businesses to comply. Private businesses are free to set their own policies.

THE IMPACT OF SB 2 IS A MASSIVE DOWNGRADE TO PROTECTIONS FOR LGBT PERSONS IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF EMPLOYMENT. AND NOT ONLY IN CHARLOTTE. IN OTHER CITIES IN NC TOO. SO ITS RISIBLE FOR YOU TO ARGUE THAT LGBT PERSONS HAVEN'T LOST PROTECTIONS. THEY HAVE.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please let me know what 'protections' the LGBT community has in NC.

---

And before you give me that 'at will' BS, please note that the NC GOP didn't try to get rid of all employment and public accommodations protections, they got rid of only those that protected LGBT persons. They still kept those protections that protected their base (the religious right) from discrimination.

You are talking about religious discrimination and sexual orientation/identity as if they are the same thing. They aren't.

DISCRIMINATION IS THE SAME THING.

My comments in ALL CAPS

Can you name the specific protections they lost (including the ordinance or statute number) and the part of HB2 and the executive orders that either eliminate those protections or don't provide for them?

(04-13-2016 09:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 09:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Where isn't it banned? lgbt is now a protected class, so discrimination is illegal, or to use your words banned. Period.

If a hotel refuses to rent a room to someone because they are Mormon, or Baptist, or Jewish, that is illegal under NC law. If they refuse to rent a room to someone because they are Gay, that is LEGAL under NC law.

It was legal prior to the passing of Charlotte's ordinance. Nothing has changed. There are other states with similar laws and last I checked there haven't been any stories of hotels refusing to rent rooms to gays or bakers refusing to make wedding cakes in NC. You are searching for a problem here where one does not exist.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What protections do LGBT persons have in NC? Certainly not in private employment. Housing? Nope. Public accommodations? 1000% No.

Same as straight people. lgbt is now a protected class. State equal employment opportunity has been expanded to include sexual orientation and identity. Still have to use the mens room if you were born a man and the womens if you were born a woman.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is true that LGBT persons had some protections in some NC cities before SB 2 passed. Now, as far as I can tell, they have virtually none.

cities can set their own as long as it does not extend beyond the state laws or force private businesses to comply. Private businesses are free to set their own policies.

THE IMPACT OF SB 2 IS A MASSIVE DOWNGRADE TO PROTECTIONS FOR LGBT PERSONS IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF EMPLOYMENT. AND NOT ONLY IN CHARLOTTE. IN OTHER CITIES IN NC TOO. SO ITS RISIBLE FOR YOU TO ARGUE THAT LGBT PERSONS HAVEN'T LOST PROTECTIONS. THEY HAVE.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please let me know what 'protections' the LGBT community has in NC.

---

And before you give me that 'at will' BS, please note that the NC GOP didn't try to get rid of all employment and public accommodations protections, they got rid of only those that protected LGBT persons. They still kept those protections that protected their base (the religious right) from discrimination.

You are talking about religious discrimination and sexual orientation/identity as if they are the same thing. They aren't.

DISCRIMINATION IS THE SAME THING.

My comments in ALL CAPS

Can you name the specific protections they lost (including the ordinance or statute number) and the part of HB2 and the executive orders that either eliminate those protections or don't provide for them?

Without spending a day trying to find where the 12 different municipalities actually put their municipal codes....I'll just answer with that of Charlotte, where it is not in question that the ordinance removed by SB 2 took away protections for LGBT persons in private employment, public accommodations, and housing.

Furthermore, Gov. McCrory just AFFIRMED without criticism discrimination against LGBT persons in private employment.

And where does a Transgendered man born in Tennessee use the restroom while transiting at Douglas Airport? The ladies room. At a Convention Center in NC? The ladies room.

---

McCrory's EO provides little protection for the few LGBT persons actually protected. They still don't have a right to use the restroom at work. McCrory asks for some accommodation to be provided if its 'reasonable' (reasonable will probably be decided by some Franklin Graham supporter). It doesn't mandate even this 'unequal' access for Transgendered persons. Big ole' nothing from McCrory IMHO. Does Charlotte's Airport even have ONE single occupancy restroom? And how are they going to keep this restroom available for those that cannot use their designated restroom safely? My prediction is that places will place 1 single occupancy restroom in the airport or convention center, which will be occupied 100% of the time by non-transgendered persons. Net result, extremely limited access for transgendered persons. And there's no mechanism to compel compliance with this request. No any penalty if there's no access provided. Or if that access is not equivalent. Or if it doesn't provide equal access. There's also no timeline for access either.

And without mandates that Transgendered persons be able to access restrooms at private businesses, Transgendered persons face the same struggle that black persons faced in segregation era North Carolina. Who knows if you'll be able to use the restroom if out shopping, visiting North Carolina as a convention attendee or sports fan, or as resident working for a company that moves jobs to North Carolina.

And who is going to pay the literally millions of dollars required to provide Transgendered persons with restroom access in NC state buildings?

The solution is simple. Allow Trans people to use the restroom consistent with the gender they present.

Trannies can use the bathrooms in public places now and before. They jus need to use the correct bathroom and don't need a special bathroom.

These individuals are mentally ill and delusional at best. Sure you can think that you are a women and have your junk removed on your own dime. But what are these freaks going to do about their chromosome issues ???

Freaks is a pejorative SCD. You can't call trannies that.

(04-13-2016 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Without spending a day trying to find where the 12 different municipalities actually put their municipal codes....I'll just answer with that of Charlotte, where it is not in question that the ordinance removed by SB 2 took away protections for LGBT persons in private employment, public accommodations, and housing.

Furthermore, Gov. McCrory just AFFIRMED without criticism discrimination against LGBT persons in private employment.

And where does a Transgendered man born in Tennessee use the restroom while transiting at Douglas Airport? The ladies room. At a Convention Center in NC? The ladies room.

---

McCrory's EO provides little protection for the few LGBT persons actually protected. They still don't have a right to use the restroom at work. McCrory asks for some accommodation to be provided if its 'reasonable' (reasonable will probably be decided by some Franklin Graham supporter). It doesn't mandate even this 'unequal' access for Transgendered persons. Big ole' nothing from McCrory IMHO. Does Charlotte's Airport even have ONE single occupancy restroom? And how are they going to keep this restroom available for those that cannot use their designated restroom safely? My prediction is that places will place 1 single occupancy restroom in the airport or convention center, which will be occupied 100% of the time by non-transgendered persons. Net result, extremely limited access for transgendered persons. And there's no mechanism to compel compliance with this request. No any penalty if there's no access provided. Or if that access is not equivalent. Or if it doesn't provide equal access. There's also no timeline for access either.

And without mandates that Transgendered persons be able to access restrooms at private businesses, Transgendered persons face the same struggle that black persons faced in segregation era North Carolina. Who knows if you'll be able to use the restroom if out shopping, visiting North Carolina as a convention attendee or sports fan, or as resident working for a company that moves jobs to North Carolina.

And who is going to pay the literally millions of dollars required to provide Transgendered persons with restroom access in NC state buildings?

The solution is simple. Allow Trans people to use the restroom consistent with the gender they present.

You think that to be the case, but it most certainly is not. Because trans persons don't walk around all day telling people who they are. The situation is not the same. The law is dumb and shouldn't exist. But the only reason it risen to a head some men have decided to take up the cause that women don't feel 'safe' with a trans person in their bathroom. The LBGT community and feminists need to resolve the issue at the next DNC convention.

(04-13-2016 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 09:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 09:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a hotel refuses to rent a room to someone because they are Mormon, or Baptist, or Jewish, that is illegal under NC law. If they refuse to rent a room to someone because they are Gay, that is LEGAL under NC law.

It was legal prior to the passing of Charlotte's ordinance. Nothing has changed. There are other states with similar laws and last I checked there haven't been any stories of hotels refusing to rent rooms to gays or bakers refusing to make wedding cakes in NC. You are searching for a problem here where one does not exist.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What protections do LGBT persons have in NC? Certainly not in private employment. Housing? Nope. Public accommodations? 1000% No.

Same as straight people. lgbt is now a protected class. State equal employment opportunity has been expanded to include sexual orientation and identity. Still have to use the mens room if you were born a man and the womens if you were born a woman.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  It is true that LGBT persons had some protections in some NC cities before SB 2 passed. Now, as far as I can tell, they have virtually none.

cities can set their own as long as it does not extend beyond the state laws or force private businesses to comply. Private businesses are free to set their own policies.

THE IMPACT OF SB 2 IS A MASSIVE DOWNGRADE TO PROTECTIONS FOR LGBT PERSONS IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF EMPLOYMENT. AND NOT ONLY IN CHARLOTTE. IN OTHER CITIES IN NC TOO. SO ITS RISIBLE FOR YOU TO ARGUE THAT LGBT PERSONS HAVEN'T LOST PROTECTIONS. THEY HAVE.

(04-12-2016 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please let me know what 'protections' the LGBT community has in NC.

---

And before you give me that 'at will' BS, please note that the NC GOP didn't try to get rid of all employment and public accommodations protections, they got rid of only those that protected LGBT persons. They still kept those protections that protected their base (the religious right) from discrimination.

You are talking about religious discrimination and sexual orientation/identity as if they are the same thing. They aren't.

DISCRIMINATION IS THE SAME THING.

My comments in ALL CAPS

Can you name the specific protections they lost (including the ordinance or statute number) and the part of HB2 and the executive orders that either eliminate those protections or don't provide for them?

Without spending a day trying to find where the 12 different municipalities actually put their municipal codes....I'll just answer with that of Charlotte, where it is not in question that the ordinance removed by SB 2 took away protections for LGBT persons in private employment, public accommodations, and housing.

Furthermore, Gov. McCrory just AFFIRMED without criticism discrimination against LGBT persons in private employment.

And where does a Transgendered man born in Tennessee use the restroom while transiting at Douglas Airport? The ladies room. At a Convention Center in NC? The ladies room.

---

McCrory's EO provides little protection for the few LGBT persons actually protected. They still don't have a right to use the restroom at work. McCrory asks for some accommodation to be provided if its 'reasonable' (reasonable will probably be decided by some Franklin Graham supporter). It doesn't mandate even this 'unequal' access for Transgendered persons. Big ole' nothing from McCrory IMHO. Does Charlotte's Airport even have ONE single occupancy restroom? And how are they going to keep this restroom available for those that cannot use their designated restroom safely? My prediction is that places will place 1 single occupancy restroom in the airport or convention center, which will be occupied 100% of the time by non-transgendered persons. Net result, extremely limited access for transgendered persons. And there's no mechanism to compel compliance with this request. No any penalty if there's no access provided. Or if that access is not equivalent. Or if it doesn't provide equal access. There's also no timeline for access either.

And without mandates that Transgendered persons be able to access restrooms at private businesses, Transgendered persons face the same struggle that black persons faced in segregation era North Carolina. Who knows if you'll be able to use the restroom if out shopping, visiting North Carolina as a convention attendee or sports fan, or as resident working for a company that moves jobs to North Carolina.

And who is going to pay the literally millions of dollars required to provide Transgendered persons with restroom access in NC state buildings?

The solution is simple. Allow Trans people to use the restroom consistent with the gender they present.[/b]

I'm not even going to respond to all your other BS. Why should trans people get to use whatever bathroom they want at the expense of the common expectation of privacy and safety of the VAST majority to that wish to use the bathroom, shower, and change with others of the same sex as themselves?

What about their rights and feelings on the matter?

(04-13-2016 03:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Without spending a day trying to find where the 12 different municipalities actually put their municipal codes....I'll just answer with that of Charlotte, where it is not in question that the ordinance removed by SB 2 took away protections for LGBT persons in private employment, public accommodations, and housing.

Furthermore, Gov. McCrory just AFFIRMED without criticism discrimination against LGBT persons in private employment.

And where does a Transgendered man born in Tennessee use the restroom while transiting at Douglas Airport? The ladies room. At a Convention Center in NC? The ladies room.

---

McCrory's EO provides little protection for the few LGBT persons actually protected. They still don't have a right to use the restroom at work. McCrory asks for some accommodation to be provided if its 'reasonable' (reasonable will probably be decided by some Franklin Graham supporter). It doesn't mandate even this 'unequal' access for Transgendered persons. Big ole' nothing from McCrory IMHO. Does Charlotte's Airport even have ONE single occupancy restroom? And how are they going to keep this restroom available for those that cannot use their designated restroom safely? My prediction is that places will place 1 single occupancy restroom in the airport or convention center, which will be occupied 100% of the time by non-transgendered persons. Net result, extremely limited access for transgendered persons. And there's no mechanism to compel compliance with this request. No any penalty if there's no access provided. Or if that access is not equivalent. Or if it doesn't provide equal access. There's also no timeline for access either.

And without mandates that Transgendered persons be able to access restrooms at private businesses, Transgendered persons face the same struggle that black persons faced in segregation era North Carolina. Who knows if you'll be able to use the restroom if out shopping, visiting North Carolina as a convention attendee or sports fan, or as resident working for a company that moves jobs to North Carolina.

And who is going to pay the literally millions of dollars required to provide Transgendered persons with restroom access in NC state buildings?

The solution is simple. Allow Trans people to use the restroom consistent with the gender they present.

You think that to be the case, but it most certainly is not. Because trans persons don't walk around all day telling people who they are. The situation is not the same. The law is dumb and shouldn't exist. But the only reason it risen to a head some men have decided to take up the cause that women don't feel 'safe' with a trans person in their bathroom. The LBGT community and feminists need to resolve the issue at the next DNC convention.

Just because some African Americans could 'pass' as white, didn't mean that they weren't discriminated against.

You're correct that Trans person just want to live their lives as the gender they present (as a permanent thing) without being singled out as 'freaks' or 'tr_nnies' or even worse... being misgendered.

LOL. You totally nailed it when you said some MEN have decided to take up the case....

What feminist opposes Transgendered restroom access?