So are these rights reserved by the states in the state constitution or made up as they go? Charlotte is a much different place than Greenville

Fags, queers, trannys, use you own bathrooms. Oh yeah you already do that in public parks.

(03-24-2016 10:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fags, queers, trannys, use you own bathrooms. Oh yeah you already do that in public parks.

How much you bet they would even object if there was a special bathroom just for them? There is no pleasing these people. They basically want to FORCE their lifestyles on the rest of us. That is the bottom line. They are the most selfish and self centered humans on the planet.

I get gays, Trans seems like a mental disorder.

(03-24-2016 04:56 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 04:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 04:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Hey, where's UofMemphis? He's usually front and center when a gay thread like this is posted.

"would you like fries with that"

The actual quote is..."do you want paper or plastic?"

He is probably busy with the Easter shoppers.

Like Ever, I could not care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. God sorts that out, not me. However, when the agenda turns from TOLERANCE to INDOCTRINATION of my children of what is "normal", that crosses the line of parental responsibility. Just because an act may be legal does not make it ubiquitously moral for all people. My children know the guardrails under which they are raised, and adherence to our ethical principles ensures that they never veer too close to legal consequences. Too bad many parents combine the two, as they are not the same, nor should they be.

They had to stop Charlotte which passed a law saying that Transgender people could use their bathroom of choice. Obama's America.

(03-24-2016 04:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 03:41 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 03:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 03:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Calling someone else a liar without proof should be a bannable offense.

He posted the proof.

I didn't write that. I posted the link.

You use that daily when we point out that your links are worthless liberal tripe. Oh then you point out that you aren't a liberal.

You are welcome to dismiss the articles I post but I'm going to call you out if you accuse me of writing something I didn't write.

If I post a link, it's because I'm posting a portion of their article. It's not something I personally wrote.

That is what the quote feature is there for. It let's people know what are your words versus what are someone else's words. The more you know.......

(03-24-2016 10:11 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So are these rights reserved by the states in the state constitution or made up as they go? Charlotte is a much different place than Greenville

It's in the state constitution.

The minimum wage for example was to prevent cities form competing with one another on an uneven playing field. There is no state law preventing businesses from paying more than the minimum wage, but a city cannot do as Seattle did and unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Likewise, the state decency laws and those governing use and access to public facilities such as restrooms are part of state law, meaning they are the same in every municipality in the state. Each municipality can enact their own ordinances so long as they do not supersede or contradict state law.

It's a very basic concept that was clearly explained to Charlotte before their ordinance was passed.

(03-24-2016 10:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fags, queers, trannys, use you own bathrooms. Oh yeah you already do that in public parks.

How much you bet they would even object if there was a special bathroom just for them? There is no pleasing these people. They basically want to FORCE their lifestyles on the rest of us. That is the bottom line. They are the most selfish and self centered humans on the planet.

They would absolutely object. It's beyond me how they think that they are due special considerations while at the same time completely dismissing any and all considerations for people who do not share their view. It has nothing to do with equality at all.

(03-25-2016 07:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:11 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So are these rights reserved by the states in the state constitution or made up as they go? Charlotte is a much different place than Greenville

It's in the state constitution.

The minimum wage for example was to prevent cities form competing with one another on an uneven playing field. There is no state law preventing businesses from paying more than the minimum wage, but a city cannot do as Seattle did and unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Likewise, the state decency laws and those governing use and access to public facilities such as restrooms are part of state law, meaning they are the same in every municipality in the state. Each municipality can enact their own ordinances so long as they do not supersede or contradict state law.

It's a very basic concept that was clearly explained to Charlotte before their ordinance was passed.

Thanks for the reply, makes sense. Don't agree but you can't blame the gov. For signing this into law.

(03-25-2016 02:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They had to stop Charlotte which passed a law saying that Transgender people could use their bathroom of choice. Obama's America.

Bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, yeah.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-25-2016 07:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:11 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So are these rights reserved by the states in the state constitution or made up as they go? Charlotte is a much different place than Greenville

It's in the state constitution.

The minimum wage for example was to prevent cities form competing with one another on an uneven playing field. There is no state law preventing businesses from paying more than the minimum wage, but a city cannot do as Seattle did and unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Likewise, the state decency laws and those governing use and access to public facilities such as restrooms are part of state law, meaning they are the same in every municipality in the state. Each municipality can enact their own ordinances so long as they do not supersede or contradict state law.

It's a very basic concept that was clearly explained to Charlotte before their ordinance was passed.

Charlotte's mayor looks like a tranny.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-25-2016 07:19 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 07:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:11 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So are these rights reserved by the states in the state constitution or made up as they go? Charlotte is a much different place than Greenville

It's in the state constitution.

The minimum wage for example was to prevent cities form competing with one another on an uneven playing field. There is no state law preventing businesses from paying more than the minimum wage, but a city cannot do as Seattle did and unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Likewise, the state decency laws and those governing use and access to public facilities such as restrooms are part of state law, meaning they are the same in every municipality in the state. Each municipality can enact their own ordinances so long as they do not supersede or contradict state law.

It's a very basic concept that was clearly explained to Charlotte before their ordinance was passed.

Thanks for the reply, makes sense.

not really. NC isn't the first case where we have seen higher minimum wage or anti-discrimination laws enacted and yet the "compatibility with state laws" BS that 200y is bringing up wasn't an issue. this whole scenario sounds identical to that situation in (I believe Texas) where a town banned fracking and the state responded by stating towns can't ban fracking. it seems like republicans are trying to pull a fast one here trying to come up with a BS rationale for this.

Shouldn't have to push back against insanity. Sadly, because liberalism....

(03-25-2016 08:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 07:19 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 07:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:11 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So are these rights reserved by the states in the state constitution or made up as they go? Charlotte is a much different place than Greenville

It's in the state constitution.

The minimum wage for example was to prevent cities form competing with one another on an uneven playing field. There is no state law preventing businesses from paying more than the minimum wage, but a city cannot do as Seattle did and unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Likewise, the state decency laws and those governing use and access to public facilities such as restrooms are part of state law, meaning they are the same in every municipality in the state. Each municipality can enact their own ordinances so long as they do not supersede or contradict state law.

It's a very basic concept that was clearly explained to Charlotte before their ordinance was passed.

Thanks for the reply, makes sense.

not really. NC isn't the first case where we have seen higher minimum wage or anti-discrimination laws enacted and yet the "compatibility with state laws" BS that 200y is bringing up wasn't an issue. this whole scenario sounds identical to that situation in (I believe Texas) where a town banned fracking and the state responded by stating towns can't ban fracking. it seems like republicans are trying to pull a fast one here trying to come up with a BS rationale for this.

Like the state constitution? Have you read the law that was just signed? It's a reaffirmation of existing state law based on the constitution. It also reaffirms non-discriminatory laws enacted by the state. I have said nothing that isn't factual and easily verifiable.

(03-25-2016 08:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 08:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 07:19 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 07:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:11 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So are these rights reserved by the states in the state constitution or made up as they go? Charlotte is a much different place than Greenville

It's in the state constitution.

The minimum wage for example was to prevent cities form competing with one another on an uneven playing field. There is no state law preventing businesses from paying more than the minimum wage, but a city cannot do as Seattle did and unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Likewise, the state decency laws and those governing use and access to public facilities such as restrooms are part of state law, meaning they are the same in every municipality in the state. Each municipality can enact their own ordinances so long as they do not supersede or contradict state law.

It's a very basic concept that was clearly explained to Charlotte before their ordinance was passed.

Thanks for the reply, makes sense.

not really. NC isn't the first case where we have seen higher minimum wage or anti-discrimination laws enacted and yet the "compatibility with state laws" BS that 200y is bringing up wasn't an issue. this whole scenario sounds identical to that situation in (I believe Texas) where a town banned fracking and the state responded by stating towns can't ban fracking. it seems like republicans are trying to pull a fast one here trying to come up with a BS rationale for this.

Like the state constitution? Have you read the law that was just signed? It's a reaffirmation of existing state law based on the constitution. It also reaffirms non-discriminatory laws enacted by the state. I have said nothing that isn't factual and easily verifiable.

Again you are BSing. What the media is saying and the fact that the NBA already came out against NC on this is pretty telling that there is more to this than the picture you are trying to paint...which happens all the time with self proclaimed internet forum experts.

Title of the thread needs to be changed. Either:
North Carolina's pro-woman law or
North Carolina's protect privacy law or
North Carolina's bring back common sense law.

(03-25-2016 08:16 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 08:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 08:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 07:19 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 07:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It's in the state constitution.

The minimum wage for example was to prevent cities form competing with one another on an uneven playing field. There is no state law preventing businesses from paying more than the minimum wage, but a city cannot do as Seattle did and unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Likewise, the state decency laws and those governing use and access to public facilities such as restrooms are part of state law, meaning they are the same in every municipality in the state. Each municipality can enact their own ordinances so long as they do not supersede or contradict state law.

It's a very basic concept that was clearly explained to Charlotte before their ordinance was passed.

Thanks for the reply, makes sense.

not really. NC isn't the first case where we have seen higher minimum wage or anti-discrimination laws enacted and yet the "compatibility with state laws" BS that 200y is bringing up wasn't an issue. this whole scenario sounds identical to that situation in (I believe Texas) where a town banned fracking and the state responded by stating towns can't ban fracking. it seems like republicans are trying to pull a fast one here trying to come up with a BS rationale for this.

Like the state constitution? Have you read the law that was just signed? It's a reaffirmation of existing state law based on the constitution. It also reaffirms non-discriminatory laws enacted by the state. I have said nothing that isn't factual and easily verifiable.

Again you are BSing. What the media is saying and the fact that the NBA already came out against NC on this is pretty telling that there is more to this than the picture you are trying to paint...which happens all the time with self proclaimed internet forum experts.

Have you read the city ordinance and the bill? I've never claimed to be any sort of expert, but as a resident of NC I guarantee you that I have listened to more commentary from state legislators and lawyers who have reviewed both the ordinance and the bill. This is a cut and dry issue, and in no place in the new law does it allow for discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, or even 'sexual identity'. Nobody can be fired for being gay, nobody can be denied service for being transgender. Who gives a **** what the NBA thinks? When did the NBA become more informed and better suited to understand a city ordinance and state law than the legislators and lawyers who deal with the NC state Constitution, legislation, and city ordinances as part of their duties?

You say I'm spouting 'BS'. Do you have any proof of that?

(03-25-2016 08:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  Title of the thread needs to be changed. Either:
North Carolina's pro-woman law or
North Carolina's protect privacy law or
North Carolina's bring back common sense law.

That title is 10x more legit than any of those politicized terms.