North Carolina Republicans were so offended that the city of Charlotte passed a local non-discrimination law that they convened a special legislative session to block the city from doing it. The city ordinance bans public places from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or identity. Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill overturning the city ordinance Wednesday night.
So much for the Republican conviction that small and local government is better.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article67731847.html
The State is likely to back down from this stance. Corps like PayPal, AA, and Apple are already taking a public stance against the new law. The NBA is also threatening to remove the allstar weekend from Charlotte next year if this law holds up. If common sense and ethics do not get this new law shot down, then the lost revenue to the state will.
It's the most expansive non discrimination law passed including race, religion, color, national origin or biological sex.
It doesnt include LGBT so it's wrong? Where's the compromise? This is good and we all know these definitions will be expanded in the future. The bathroom bill jargon scared the state reps and they may have won the battle but the precedent is set for LGBT stuff to be added. Don't know about bathrooms tho. Segregated toilets might stick for awhile.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 25, 2016, 05:33:05 PM
It's the most expansive non discrimination law passed including race, religion, color, national origin or biological sex.
It doesnt include LGBT so it's wrong? Where's the compromise?
So what was the point of eliminating the LGBT protections the local bill included?
If memory serves, this started as a bathroom bill and morphed thereafter.
It seems the US is Ok with LGBT until it comes to their kids bathrooms at school.
I have read a few articles about various bathroom bills in various government entities around the country. Many of the smaller school districts were up in arms over accomodation and were fearing lawsuits on both sides.
The fact that we have to legislate bathroom laws is kind of pathetic.
I'd be willing to wager that there have been more Republican politicians arrested for doing untoward things in bathrooms than there have been trans people. Just sayin'.
^^^The most notable case is Larry Craig from Idaho, who is LGBT and Republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal
Quote from: I-10east on March 26, 2016, 09:52:27 AM
^^^The most notable case is Larry Craig from Idaho, who is LGBT and Republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal
Larry Craig is married to a woman and identifies as straight.
Quote from: finehoe on March 26, 2016, 10:06:22 AM
Quote from: I-10east on March 26, 2016, 09:52:27 AM
^^^The most notable case is Larry Craig from Idaho, who is LGBT and Republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal
Larry Craig is married to a woman and identifies as straight.
But he clearly isn't straight. He may be bisexual, but he's clearly not straight.
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 10:10:45 AM
But he clearly isn't straight. He may be bisexual, but he's clearly not straight.
He's clearly whatever he says he is. It's not up to you or me to decide his sexuality for him, just like it's not up to the NC legislature to decide which restroom a trans person feels more at ease using.
Quote from: finehoe on March 26, 2016, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 10:10:45 AM
But he clearly isn't straight. He may be bisexual, but he's clearly not straight.
He's clearly whatever he says he is. It's not up to you or me to decide his sexuality for him, just like it's not up to the NC legislature to decide which restroom a trans person feels more at ease using.
He apparently has a history of having sex with men. I might claim to be left handed, but that doesn't mean I am.
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 11:20:07 AM
I might claim to be left handed, but that doesn't mean I am.
"I might claim to be a man, but without a penis that doesn't mean I am."
Perhaps you should run for office in North Carolina.
Quote from: finehoe on March 26, 2016, 12:18:54 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 11:20:07 AM
I might claim to be left handed, but that doesn't mean I am.
"I might claim to be a man, but without a penis that doesn't mean I am."
Perhaps you should run for office in North Carolina.
I think it's interesting how you are so quick to pass judgment on my comments and basically call me a bigot (by stating I should run for the NCGA). I guess you're just a bit of a hypocrite.
I know you don't deal with people even slightly disagreeing with you (or questioning anything you ever post), but you don't know me at all.
I quibble with your statement that Larry Graig is straight and now that means I apparently support the actions of the Republican-led NCGA. You're a fucking genius.
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 12:39:31 PM
I think it's interesting how you are so quick to pass judgment on my comments and basically call me a bigot (by stating I should run for the NCGA). I guess you're just a bit of a hypocrite.
I know you don't deal with people even slightly disagreeing with you (or questioning anything you ever post), but you don't know me at all.
I quibble with your statement that Larry Graig is straight and now that means I apparently support the actions of the Republican-led NCGA. You're a fucking genius.
Larry Craig
says he is straight. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Just because you don't get it or don't understand it doesn't make it any less true. It's not "calling you a bigot" to point out that the same thought processes that apparently won't allow you to accept the reality that some men who have sex with other men still identify as straight is no different than the thought processes that won't allow some folks to accept the reality that some people who are born as one sex identify as the other.
I'm at a loss as to what is "hypocritical" about this, other than your own position.
Quote from: finehoe on March 26, 2016, 01:28:45 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 12:39:31 PM
I think it's interesting how you are so quick to pass judgment on my comments and basically call me a bigot (by stating I should run for the NCGA). I guess you're just a bit of a hypocrite.
I know you don't deal with people even slightly disagreeing with you (or questioning anything you ever post), but you don't know me at all.
I quibble with your statement that Larry Graig is straight and now that means I apparently support the actions of the Republican-led NCGA. You're a fucking genius.
Larry Craig says he is straight. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Just because you don't get it or don't understand it doesn't make it any less true. It's not "calling you a bigot" to point out that the same thought processes that apparently won't allow you to accept the reality that some men who have sex with other men still identify as straight is no different than the thought processes that won't allow some folks to accept the reality that some people who are born as one sex identify as the other.
I'm at a loss as to what is "hypocritical" about this, other than your own position.
So, because Larry Craig says he is straight, it is a fact? Does that mean that if Donald Trump says he isn't racist, it's a fact, too?
I
never said Larry Craig didn't identify with being straight or consider himself straight. That is something you've now added after the fact to "strengthen" your position.
I said,
"But he clearly isn't straight. He may be bisexual, but he's clearly not straight."My comment specifically is pointing out the gap between what he thinks he is and what he actually is. As you can see, I never contended otherwise. I never said that Craig doesn't think he's straight. I said he's gay or bi. Actions sometimes speak louder than words.
To wit: you claim to be a liberal, but act like a nazi whenever anyone disagrees with you.
None of this has anything to do with the decision of the NCGA and you don't know my opinion on it. In fact, you've not asked for it. But that hasn't stopped you from labeling me by implication - solely because I had the gall to appear to disagree with you on a minor point (which I was mainly making a joke about - not disagreeing with you about).
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 01:59:59 PM
My comment specifically is pointing out the gap between what he thinks he is and what he actually is.
This quote could come straight from the transcript of the debate over House Bill 2.
Funny or Die's take on NC. I guess that I'll say the obligatory 'ouch'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU63gAvA3DI
Quote from: finehoe on March 26, 2016, 02:11:49 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 26, 2016, 01:59:59 PM
My comment specifically is pointing out the gap between what he thinks he is and what he actually is.
This quote could come straight from the transcript of the debate over House Bill 2.
Maybe. But I'm not arguing anything about how Craig should be treated under the law because of his sexual orientation.
I'm simply pointing out that an anti-gay bigot is likely a self-hating homosexual - regardless of whether he admits it openly.
Quote from: I-10east on March 26, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
Funny or Die's take on NC. I guess that I'll say the obligatory 'ouch'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU63gAvA3DI
Very funny!
I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to slip legislation for the transgender bathroom issue by by attacking from an ADA standpoint since it already addresses restrooms / disabled statewide. It's a cognitive identity disorder after all.
I looked it up in the DSM when comparing to delusions before. Guess your truth is better than mine.
Still, might be easier under the ADA umbrella to pass if that's really the point of all this.
I explicitly said the trans bathroom issue.
I never said anything about gay or bi. These are clearly sexual identities.
Moot point, however, since you claim there is nothing disabling about identifying as trans, gay or bi. What's the reason for the bathroom bill at all if being trans isn't disabling? Laws aren't about comfort.
As a percentage, there are probably more obese people than trans. Should we require bus and airline seats to be wider to accomodate those few? That's basically the same argument if trans isn't disabling and this is merely to make them comfortable. Doesnt seem likely to pass that way.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 27, 2016, 03:57:33 AM
I explicitly said the trans bathroom issue.
I never said anything about gay or bi. These are clearly sexual identities.
Moot point, however, since you claim there is nothing disabling about identifying as trans, gay or bi. What's the reason for the bathroom bill at all if being trans isn't disabling? Laws aren't about comfort.
As a percentage, there are probably more obese people than trans. Should we require bus and airline seats to be wider to accomodate those few? That's basically the same argument if trans isn't disabling and this is merely to make them comfortable. Doesnt seem likely to pass that way.
You're right that gay or bi are sexual orientations and being trans is about gender identity.
But parking that to the side, I can see where Stephen is coming from:
Saying this could or should be dealt with as an ADA issue is basically like saying that being transgendered is a disability. That's offensive - it's like saying being black is a disability. No one in his right mind would've tried to approach desegregation via the ADA (had it been around at the time).
I don't necessarily think you're being a troll here. But I don't agree with you re the ADA.
Awhite, would being born black but self identifying as white be considered a mental disorder? We consider people that are skinny but identify as fat a disorder.
Gender dysphoria used to be called "gender identity disorder." Still a disorder.
As far as "conflating the issue," sorry my opinion doesn't serve yours. Reverting to name calling instead of open discourse isn't what makes a site worthy of becoming an Apple news site. Guess it's better than editing or deleting comments but still isn't a positive step to solving these "issues".
Instead of being " offended" but admiting they have a problem would serve them better as far as getting stuff like this passed. Otherwise, laws don't get passed for minority comforts.
"Gender" affects many other laws - like violence against women - so perhaps the policy makers are considering stuff like that and this issue is more "conflated" than it may seem to people with a very limited scope.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 27, 2016, 10:12:02 AM
Awhite, would being born black but self identifying as white be considered a mental disorder?
I'm not qualified to make that judgment. Sorry.
Used to be called a different name but you listed the current disorder classification so it's not a "used to".
More studies have been done into this terrible affliction so now the name has been improved to reflect this disorder.
It's like you don't want these people to receive treatment or even get the laws changed.
Awhite, you're just as unqualified to say that a black person identifying as white is/isn't a disorder as you are qualified to say that being a man and identifying as a woman is/isn't a disorder. I would agree with the professionals and say that both of these conditions are disorders.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 27, 2016, 10:33:31 AM
Awhite, you're just as unqualified to say that a black person identifying as white is/isn't a disorder as you are qualified to say that being a man and identifying as a woman is/isn't a disorder. I would agree with the professionals and say that both of these conditions are disorders.
The APA doesn't consider simply being transgender a mental disorder - and I figure they know more about it than either of us does:
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx (http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx)
A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."
Then according to the APA definition, there is no need for this law because everything is fine for them.
Is that the position you want?
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 27, 2016, 10:42:46 AM
Then according to the APA definition, there is no need for this law because everything is fine for them.
Is that the position you want?
I didn't see that bit in what I posted. I actually saw the opposite.
Well that's not conflating.
QuoteAccording to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria."
Quote from: Adam White on March 27, 2016, 10:37:58 AM
The APA doesn't consider simply being transgender a mental disorder - and I figure they know more about it than either of us does:
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx (http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx)
A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 27, 2016, 11:57:21 AM
Quote from: Adam White on March 27, 2016, 10:37:58 AM
The APA doesn't consider simply being transgender a mental disorder - and I figure they know more about it than either of us does:
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx (http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx)
A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."
A psychological state is considered a mental disorder
only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder....
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5),
people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."
Even the citations posted here has conflicting / evolving positions on this disorder. Or not disorder, whatever. Obviously open to interpretation and reflects more on personal belief. It's clear what each of us personally believe. It's also clear that our search terms will influence results.
I merely was posting an idea to get this passed via ADA. Instead of rallying support, you would rather have a semantically argument. No wonder it isn't getting traction. We would have passed the HRO in Jax if the leadership was open to inclusive strategies instead of "my way or else."
Or not. It was just some thoughts. Nothing more. We can act like arguing online / complaining is going to help but it isn't. Especially when people that propose alternatives are attacked.
Charlotte's law exceed the authority they have in the state's constitution. 4 lawsuits filed this morning, so we'll get an answer one way or another from the courts. I'm sure I've already used the pisser with a trans, so unsure if I would have fought this battle.
Annual furniture market in High Point NC feeling effects of LGBT hate.http://www.wfmynews2.com/mb/news/local/customers-cancel-attendance-at-high-point-furniture-market-over-bathroom-bill/106302741
Quote from: spuwho on March 25, 2016, 09:55:08 PM
If memory serves, this started as a bathroom bill and morphed thereafter.
It seems the US is Ok with LGBT until it comes to their kids bathrooms at school.
I have read a few articles about various bathroom bills in various government entities around the country. Many of the smaller school districts were up in arms over accomodation and were fearing lawsuits on both sides.
The fact that we have to legislate bathroom laws is kind of pathetic.
Opponents of the bill, and of laws like this in general, like to label these bills as relating only to bathrooms. But that's just not the case. Public restrooms are a component of public accommodations, but after the action of the NC Legislature, restaurants, hotels, and busses can hang up "no LGBT served here" signs and that would be perfectly legal. It's not just about the bathroom, in fact very little about it has to do with bathroom use. Opponents go to the bathroom because that's where the emotion is. It's an old playbook from bygone discrimination fights that still works in some places.
Like the people who claimed that passing the HRO in Jacksonville would mean that public school girls would have to worry about boys in their bathroom, people should really try to understand what's going on. In Duval, public schools already affirm the rights of transkids to use the bathroom that conforms to their gender identity. That's the been the case for years. OSHA has also issued guidelines that indicate that trans workers should be permitted to use the bathroom that conforms to their gender identity.
There is no law in the state of Florida related to bathroom use. Dads can take their daughters to the potty without being arrested. Custodial staff can clean both/all bathrooms. Caretakers can assist infirm and elderly without repercussion. The bathroom is a component of the bigger issue, it's it's a side show that the rightwing conflates into the main event. Very frustrating when it works. Very satisfying, like in Georgia and Atlantic Beach, when it doesn't.
And then, of course, there's this: https://jaxequality.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/florida-experts-debunk-hro-bathroom-myths/
Bringing as much truth as possible into this deceitful bathroom business is one of the best things we can do to secure equality.
Quote from: Jimmy on March 29, 2016, 11:37:52 AM
Quote from: spuwho on March 25, 2016, 09:55:08 PM
If memory serves, this started as a bathroom bill and morphed thereafter.
It seems the US is Ok with LGBT until it comes to their kids bathrooms at school.
I have read a few articles about various bathroom bills in various government entities around the country. Many of the smaller school districts were up in arms over accomodation and were fearing lawsuits on both sides.
The fact that we have to legislate bathroom laws is kind of pathetic.
Opponents of the bill, and of laws like this in general, like to label these bills as relating only to bathrooms. But that's just not the case. Public restrooms are a component of public accommodations, but after the action of the NC Legislature, restaurants, hotels, and busses can hang up "no LGBT served here" signs and that would be perfectly legal. It's not just about the bathroom, in fact very little about it has to do with bathroom use. Opponents go to the bathroom because that's where the emotion is. It's an old playbook from bygone discrimination fights that still works in some places.
Like the people who claimed that passing the HRO in Jacksonville would mean that public school girls would have to worry about boys in their bathroom, people should really try to understand what's going on. In Duval, public schools already affirm the rights of transkids to use the bathroom that conforms to their gender identity. That's the been the case for years. OSHA has also issued guidelines that indicate that trans workers should be permitted to use the bathroom that conforms to their gender identity.
There is no law in the state of Florida related to bathroom use. Dads can take their daughters to the potty without being arrested. Custodial staff can clean both/all bathrooms. Caretakers can assist infirm and elderly without repercussion. The bathroom is a component of the bigger issue, it's it's a side show that the rightwing conflates into the main event. Very frustrating when it works. Very satisfying, like in Georgia and Atlantic Beach, when it doesn't.
And then, of course, there's this: https://jaxequality.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/florida-experts-debunk-hro-bathroom-myths/
Bringing as much truth as possible into this deceitful bathroom business is one of the best things we can do to secure equality.
Yeah, I've been meaning to say this, but the "bathroom bill" stuff is just an invented schtick of the anti-human rights ordinance side. Bathrooms are only a small part of public accommodations, and the trans community is a small part of the LGBT community, meaning real changes any given ordinance will have on peoples' bathroom habits will be
vanishingly small. That's especially the case considering that trans people are already using the bathroom of their gender identity, and for those who "pass" easily, it's not an issue even now.
I didn't believe my dad when the "bathroom bill" talk started and he said it would be a silver bullet for the anti-gay crowd. I never believed people would fall for something that's such an obvious and cynical ploy. But that's exactly how it's turning out. It strikes people on a such a visceral level that everything else - least of all the need to guarantee that LGBT people can't be fired or evicted just for being who they are - goes right out the window.
Quote from: fsquid on March 28, 2016, 03:55:50 PM
Charlotte's law exceed the authority they have in the state's constitution. 4 lawsuits filed this morning, so we'll get an answer one way or another from the courts. I'm sure I've already used the pisser with a trans, so unsure if I would have fought this battle.
If they really exceeded the authority given by the state's constitution, it would have been revoked in state court, not by the legislature passing a new law. The reality is that the state has only now stripped local governments of the ability to pass non-discrimination ordinances, and they did it through law, not the state constitution. They also pulled some very shady shenanigans to get it passed, which is telling.
Quote from: fsquid on March 28, 2016, 03:55:50 PM
Charlotte's law exceed the authority they have in the state's constitution. 4 lawsuits filed this morning, so we'll get an answer one way or another from the courts. I'm sure I've already used the pisser with a trans, so unsure if I would have fought this battle.
It's probably unconstitutional in light of
Romer v. Evans as well.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 29, 2016, 01:47:24 PM
I didn't believe my dad when the "bathroom bill" talk started and he said it would be a silver bullet for the anti-gay crowd. I never believed people would fall for something that's such an obvious and cynical ploy. But that's exactly how it's turning out. It strikes people on a such a visceral level that everything else - least of all the need to guarantee that LGBT people can't be fired or evicted just for being who they are - goes right out the window.
It's similar to the arguments against gays serving in the military used back in the 90s, when many opponents thought that dying in combat would be a blessing compared to having to take a shower next to a homo.
Quote from: finehoe on March 29, 2016, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 29, 2016, 01:47:24 PM
I didn't believe my dad when the "bathroom bill" talk started and he said it would be a silver bullet for the anti-gay crowd. I never believed people would fall for something that's such an obvious and cynical ploy. But that's exactly how it's turning out. It strikes people on a such a visceral level that everything else - least of all the need to guarantee that LGBT people can't be fired or evicted just for being who they are - goes right out the window.
It's similar to the arguments against gays serving in the military used back in the 90s, when many opponents thought that dying in combat would be a blessing compared to having to take a shower next to a homo.
Yeah, I hadn't thought about that, but the rhetoric is really similar. They used the "shower issue" right up to the point all the restrictions were removed. Probably after.
QuoteI didn't believe my dad when the "bathroom bill" talk started and he said it would be a silver bullet for the anti-gay crowd. I never believed people would fall for something that's such an obvious and cynical ploy. But that's exactly how it's turning out.
Listen to 'conservative' talk radio for one day, or hell just a couple of hours, and you will lose any shock from the gullibility of their audience. There is literally nothing too stupid, illogical or impossible that they won't buy it, hook line and sinker. I wish I could think of a way to make money off of their gullibility. It would have to be easier than taking candy from a baby or doing any kind of work.
Good points.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 29, 2016, 04:38:45 PM
I wish I could think of a way to make money off of their gullibility. It would have to be easier than taking candy from a baby or doing any kind of work.
Trump found a way. Perhaps he can give you some advice. ::)
Quote from: vicupstate on March 29, 2016, 04:38:45 PM
Listen to 'conservative' talk radio for one day, or hell just a couple of hours, and you will lose any shock from the gullibility of their audience. There is literally nothing too stupid, illogical or impossible that they won't buy it, hook line and sinker. I wish I could think of a way to make money off of their gullibility. It would have to be easier than taking candy from a baby or doing any kind of work.
I think you figured out one good way: working in conservative media. Another is working for any of the screwball interest/hate groups that prey on fear and misinformation like the NRA, Focus on the Family, etc.
It's nice to see cooler heads prevail. I assume the NCGA didn't see that coming!
I'm sympathetic to this, but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional. If a state passed civil rights protects and a state attorney decided not to defend it, the other side would be up in arms. This particular AG is also running against the governor in the election this year.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 30, 2016, 09:48:46 AM
...but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional....
It's not that simple. Here's a good overview of this issue: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/state-attorneys-general-and-the-duty-to-defend
I think the headline on this thread is misleading. What the NC legislature did went far beyond repealing the recent updates Charlotte's Human Rights Ordinance that included adding protections from discrimination based on the newly protected categories of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity and expression".
Several other cities and counties had gone beyond NC State's enumerated list of protected groups by adding protections on the categories of sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SO/GIE) including Buncombe County, Durham County, Guilford County, Mecklenburg County, Orange County, Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Boone, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Bessemer City, Durham, High Point, and Winston-Salem. All those cities and counties policies are potentially in jeopardy as it is unclear if HB2 will impact city and county hiring practices. Those cities may no longer able to enforce their nondiscrimination ordinances as they had intended them.
Additionally, Greensboro had added housing protections based on SO/GIE and Raleigh and Charlotte had previously passed laws requiring those who contracted with those cities had to protect LGBT employees from discrimination. The passage of HB2 also put in doubt other categories beyond SO/GIE that are not covered by state statute but have been added by local municipalities like "veterans status" and "family status". It was also reported that HB2 would not allow cities to pass their own minimum wage standards that go beyond state law, which is an assault on the working poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/north-carolina-governor-attacks-critics-of-law-curbing-protections-from-bias.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/north-carolina-governor-attacks-critics-of-law-curbing-protections-from-bias.html?_r=1)
The heat is turning up
Quote from: Jimmy on March 29, 2016, 11:58:15 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on March 29, 2016, 04:38:45 PM
Listen to 'conservative' talk radio for one day, or hell just a couple of hours, and you will lose any shock from the gullibility of their audience. There is literally nothing too stupid, illogical or impossible that they won't buy it, hook line and sinker. I wish I could think of a way to make money off of their gullibility. It would have to be easier than taking candy from a baby or doing any kind of work.
I think you figured out one good way: working in conservative media. Another is working for any of the screwball interest/hate groups that prey on fear and misinformation like the NRA, Focus on the Family, etc.
I have been listening to conservative media recently to get the latest score on Trump vs Cruz and I havent heard anything derogatory towards LGBT's.
There was some commentary on the growth industry of bathroom laws, but I havent as yet heard anything or anyone speak out against them.
The only concerns I heard were about accomodation and they didnt sound like fear, it was more a question of practicality. That isnt related to hate as far as I can tell.
Before Finehoe pulls out the quotes book, I dont listen to conservative media 24 hours a day. So if someone said anything against it, it hasnt been during the times I have clicked in.
If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about. Then, in North Carolina, anti-LGBT politicians actually enact real "bathroom bills" that legislate what bathrooms people can and can't use. I'm sure they don't like to think about this as discrimination, but it is.
As far as the candidates go, Trump doesn't focus on LGBT issues particularly. He's adopted some of the Republican rhetoric about marriage in the last year or two, but that's about it. Cruz is pretty consistently against LGBT rights, and talks about it regularly.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
As far as the candidates go, Trump doesn't focus on LGBT issues particularly. He's adopted some of the Republican rhetoric about marriage in the last year or two, but that's about it. Cruz is pretty consistently against LGBT rights, and talks about it regularly.
Cruz scares me way more than Trump. Trump will say whatever he thinks will get him votes. But you think that he would likely disappoint a lot of his supporters should he become President. While I have serious issues with anyone who would stoop to that level and stir up hate the way he has just to garner votes, I can't help but be more concerned about Cruz, who is a hateful bigot and religious fanatic - and actually believes in what he says. Cruz is the Christian American equivalent of an Islamist.
Quote from: Adam White on March 31, 2016, 02:45:06 AM
Cruz scares me way more than Trump. Trump will say whatever he thinks will get him votes. But you think that he would likely disappoint a lot of his supporters should he become President. While I have serious issues with anyone who would stoop to that level and stir up hate the way he has just to garner votes, I can't help but be more concerned about Cruz, who is a hateful bigot and religious fanatic - and actually believes in what he says. Cruz is the Christian American equivalent of an Islamist.
I totally agree.
Quote from: finehoe on March 31, 2016, 06:26:16 AM
Quote from: Adam White on March 31, 2016, 02:45:06 AM
Cruz scares me way more than Trump. Trump will say whatever he thinks will get him votes. But you think that he would likely disappoint a lot of his supporters should he become President. While I have serious issues with anyone who would stoop to that level and stir up hate the way he has just to garner votes, I can't help but be more concerned about Cruz, who is a hateful bigot and religious fanatic - and actually believes in what he says. Cruz is the Christian American equivalent of an Islamist.
I totally agree.
But thankfully he has no ties to Wall Street, so at least that part is OK ;)
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2016, 12:16:15 PM
And I suppose this means that the State will probably also have a new governor after the election.
probably, its about the only race in the state that isn't gerrymandered into no contests every election.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about. Then, in North Carolina, anti-LGBT politicians actually enact real "bathroom bills" that legislate what bathrooms people can and can't use. I'm sure they don't like to think about this as discrimination, but it is.
As far as the candidates go, Trump doesn't focus on LGBT issues particularly. He's adopted some of the Republican rhetoric about marriage in the last year or two, but that's about it. Cruz is pretty consistently against LGBT rights, and talks about it regularly.
I agree, what starts as a bathroom arrangement gets blown into a full "manage LGBT" issue, and I object to that.
As far as practicality, it usually referred to where to put gender neutral facilities in government or public schools.
As far as the fear factor that people bring up on gender identity in the bathrooms, the habit is to reach for the base instinct and say crime will immediately occur.
At a former employer in Chicago we actually did have a cross dresser issue where males dressed as women were entering the womens can and attempting to peep.
In response, building management put combination locks on all the womens bathrooms and gave them a code only women knew.
Does that happen all the time? Of course not, but being a risk adverse culture now where lawsuits are the norm, some businesses feel like they are stuck on how to respond specifically to the concept of "identity".
The NAACP kicked out a lady recently because she identified as black, when in reality she wasnt. Is that different?
I think that is what most people are struggling with, is that concept of identity. When it isnt clear what identity works in all cases, the laws have to compensate, hence the bathroom laws.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2016, 09:21:42 AM
wow. North Carolina's Attorney General declares the anti gay law unconstitutional and announces that his office will not be defending the law in any court.
QuoteAs reported earlier, the ACLU will be suing the state of North Carolina over it's bigoted transgender discrimination law.
In addition, a number of states an municipalities, including New York State, are banning non-essential state travel to North Carolina.
Now one person says he will not participate in defending this law, and his participation matters, a lot.
He's the state's Attorney General.
This is the equivalent of your own defense lawyer telling the judge you're guilty as sin and walking out of the courtroom. Yahoo Politics:
According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina's justice department and treasurer's office, as well as many of the state's businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.
"House Bill 2 is unconstitutional," he said. "Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2."
Attorney General does not have this discretion and is breaking the law by not enforcing the law. If the Legislature and Governor have created and authorized the law, it should be followed. If there are problems, and someone has standing, they can file suit. This is similar to the Kentucky clerk who disagreed with passing out marriage licenses to gay couples. At least she was personally opposed and just wanted someone else to do it for her. This joker won't let his office enforce it. Too bad. Writ of Mandamus anyone? LOL. It is straight out of the Obama administration's book though.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about.
If so, why not take them out of the ordinances altogether ? Are bathroom accommodations really the key part that the ordinances would be worthless without ?
Quote from: spuwho on March 31, 2016, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about. Then, in North Carolina, anti-LGBT politicians actually enact real "bathroom bills" that legislate what bathrooms people can and can't use. I'm sure they don't like to think about this as discrimination, but it is.
As far as the candidates go, Trump doesn't focus on LGBT issues particularly. He's adopted some of the Republican rhetoric about marriage in the last year or two, but that's about it. Cruz is pretty consistently against LGBT rights, and talks about it regularly.
I agree, what starts as a bathroom arrangement gets blown into a full "manage LGBT" issue, and I object to that.
As far as practicality, it usually referred to where to put gender neutral facilities in government or public schools.
What I'm saying is that the issue of bathrooms is a very small part of the local HROs, if it's even part at all. The Jacksonville HRO, for instance, didn't mention bathrooms. And even for the ones like Charlotte that did, any change is exceedingly minimal because a significant portion of trans people already use the bathroom of their gender identity. Many local HROs only deal with gender orientation, leaving out trans people (and therefore their bathroom habits) entirely.
What the HROs are really about is protecting people from getting fired, evicted, or denied service because of their sexual orientation and identity. The focus on the barely-if-at-all relevant bathroom element is just a tactic to prevent HROs from passing.
Quote from: spuwho on March 31, 2016, 12:35:48 PM
As far as the fear factor that people bring up on gender identity in the bathrooms, the habit is to reach for the base instinct and say crime will immediately occur.
At a former employer in Chicago we actually did have a cross dresser issue where males dressed as women were entering the womens can and attempting to peep.
In response, building management put combination locks on all the womens bathrooms and gave them a code only women knew.
Does that happen all the time? Of course not, but being a risk adverse culture now where lawsuits are the norm, some businesses feel like they are stuck on how to respond specifically to the concept of "identity".
Obviously, these bills don't prevent businesses from acting in the rare, anecdotal case of someone peeping or otherwise being disruptive. It's the disruption that's the problem, not the identity. You could still fire a gay employee for embezzling or evict a gay tenant for running a meth lab.
Quote from: spuwho on March 31, 2016, 12:35:48 PM
The NAACP kicked out a lady recently because she identified as black, when in reality she wasnt. Is that different?
I think that is what most people are struggling with, is that concept of identity. When it isnt clear what identity works in all cases, the laws have to compensate, hence the bathroom laws.
The Rachel Dolezal case is different if only because there have only been a handful of cases in all of American history of a white person adopting a black identity. Most (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/12/other_white_americans_have_pretended_to_be_black_rachel_dolezal_s_predecessors.html) cases (https://books.google.com/books?id=dy5pJ26JIvUC&pg=PA126&dq=%22interracial+intimacies%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI9uTnu-vLAhUBHB4KHZI8BvMQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=stebbins&f=false) have involved white people trying to benefit in some way by claiming to be black, usually temporarily. For instance, the white firefighters trying to take advantage of affirmative action laws, or two different white politicians trying to win races in minority districts. In contrast, there are about 700,000 trans people (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf) in the U.S.
I will say that I think you're right that a lot of people just don't understand the identity issue. That's why a lot of HROs leave out trans people.
Quote from: Gunnar on March 31, 2016, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about.
If so, why not take them out of the ordinances altogether ? Are bathroom accommodations really the key part that the ordinances would be worthless without ?
See my last comment. Many if not most of these local HROs don't actually involve bathroom accommodations specifically. Many others don't include trans rights at all, and only focus on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The focus on the bathroom issue is almost entirely a cynical ploy by the anti-HRO side. It's just one of the major things they can focus on to torpedo the rest of the protections.
Still, I think in the future we will see bills coming up that go out of their way not to include bathrooms, and possibly transgender people at all, as the "bathroom bill" ploy seems to be working.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 02:21:07 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 31, 2016, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2016, 09:21:42 AM
wow. North Carolina's Attorney General declares the anti gay law unconstitutional and announces that his office will not be defending the law in any court.
QuoteAs reported earlier, the ACLU will be suing the state of North Carolina over it's bigoted transgender discrimination law.
In addition, a number of states an municipalities, including New York State, are banning non-essential state travel to North Carolina.
Now one person says he will not participate in defending this law, and his participation matters, a lot.
He's the state's Attorney General.
This is the equivalent of your own defense lawyer telling the judge you're guilty as sin and walking out of the courtroom. Yahoo Politics:
According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina's justice department and treasurer's office, as well as many of the state's businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.
"House Bill 2 is unconstitutional," he said. "Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2."
Attorney General does not have this discretion and is breaking the law by not enforcing the law. If the Legislature and Governor have created and authorized the law, it should be followed. If there are problems, and someone has standing, they can file suit. This is similar to the Kentucky clerk who disagreed with passing out marriage licenses to gay couples. At least she was personally opposed and just wanted someone else to do it for her. This joker won't let his office enforce it. Too bad. Writ of Mandamus anyone? LOL. It is straight out of the Obama administration's book though.
see below. it differs from state to state and its not as clearcut as you seem to believe.
Quote from: finehoe on March 30, 2016, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 30, 2016, 09:48:46 AM
...but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional....
It's not that simple. Here's a good overview of this issue: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/state-attorneys-general-and-the-duty-to-defend
So this is a debate that goes back to the Founding. Jefferson, for example, saw the Supreme Court as an advisory body rather than a body that was the final arbiter of constitutional issues. In the end, the Courts do not have final say. The Constitutional officers that enforce the law do. In Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson told the Court he wasn't going to follow what they said. They gave him his outcome, which he of course followed, which lead to precedent for the Court. Jefferson believed he was the ultimate arbiter with the Congress.
But, hypothetically, if Ted Cruz were to become President and appoint Marco Rubio as Attorney General, but the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, essentially creating gridlock, would you think it is within the purview of the President and Attorney General to no longer enforce Obamacare (the mandate, the state exchanges, and tax code) which would render Obamacare useless and basically revert to the previous system? Seemingly, the President and Attorney General could do this on any law but this type of blatant disregard for the law that the people's representatives passed. In the end, who can do what is based upon what the public allows and legitimizes e.g. the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: Gunnar on March 31, 2016, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about.
If so, why not take them out of the ordinances altogether ? Are bathroom accommodations really the key part that the ordinances would be worthless without ?
See my last comment. Many if not most of these local HROs don't actually involve bathroom accommodations specifically. Many others don't include trans rights at all, and only focus on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The focus on the bathroom issue is almost entirely a cynical ploy by the anti-HRO side. It's just one of the major things they can focus on to torpedo the rest of the protections.
Still, I think in the future we will see bills coming up that go out of their way not to include bathrooms, and possibly transgender people at all, as the "bathroom bill" ploy seems to be working.
Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that trans people should be left out at all, just that if the bathroom issue is what allows opponents to torpedo the bills then leave them out.
Quote from: Gunnar on March 31, 2016, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: Gunnar on March 31, 2016, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 31, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
If they're calling these ordinances "bathroom laws", it's spin. Bathroom accommodations are a very small part of the ordinances, but it's something the anti-LGBT side can win with, so it's all they want to talk about.
If so, why not take them out of the ordinances altogether ? Are bathroom accommodations really the key part that the ordinances would be worthless without ?
See my last comment. Many if not most of these local HROs don't actually involve bathroom accommodations specifically. Many others don't include trans rights at all, and only focus on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The focus on the bathroom issue is almost entirely a cynical ploy by the anti-HRO side. It's just one of the major things they can focus on to torpedo the rest of the protections.
Still, I think in the future we will see bills coming up that go out of their way not to include bathrooms, and possibly transgender people at all, as the "bathroom bill" ploy seems to be working.
Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that trans people should be left out at all, just that if the bathroom issue is what allows opponents to torpedo the bills then leave them out.
I hear you. I think that's just what we'll have to do from now on. And I'm definitely not saying that trans people should be left out either, but in a lot of places it may be the only way to get any protections passed.
Quote from: spuwho on March 31, 2016, 12:35:48 PM
The NAACP kicked out a lady recently because she identified as black, when in reality she wasnt.
Rachel Dolezal, wasn't "kicked out," she resigned. In fact, the NAACP issued a statement supporting her: http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-statement-on-rachel-dolezal
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 31, 2016, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 02:21:07 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 31, 2016, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2016, 09:21:42 AM
wow. North Carolina's Attorney General declares the anti gay law unconstitutional and announces that his office will not be defending the law in any court.
QuoteAs reported earlier, the ACLU will be suing the state of North Carolina over it's bigoted transgender discrimination law.
In addition, a number of states an municipalities, including New York State, are banning non-essential state travel to North Carolina.
Now one person says he will not participate in defending this law, and his participation matters, a lot.
He's the state's Attorney General.
This is the equivalent of your own defense lawyer telling the judge you're guilty as sin and walking out of the courtroom. Yahoo Politics:
According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina's justice department and treasurer's office, as well as many of the state's businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.
"House Bill 2 is unconstitutional," he said. "Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2."
Attorney General does not have this discretion and is breaking the law by not enforcing the law. If the Legislature and Governor have created and authorized the law, it should be followed. If there are problems, and someone has standing, they can file suit. This is similar to the Kentucky clerk who disagreed with passing out marriage licenses to gay couples. At least she was personally opposed and just wanted someone else to do it for her. This joker won't let his office enforce it. Too bad. Writ of Mandamus anyone? LOL. It is straight out of the Obama administration's book though.
see below. it differs from state to state and its not as clearcut as you seem to believe.
Quote from: finehoe on March 30, 2016, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 30, 2016, 09:48:46 AM
...but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional....
It's not that simple. Here's a good overview of this issue: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/state-attorneys-general-and-the-duty-to-defend
So this is a debate that goes back to the Founding. Jefferson, for example, saw the Supreme Court as an advisory body rather than a body that was the final arbiter of constitutional issues. In the end, the Courts do not have final say. The Constitutional officers that enforce the law do. In Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson told the Court he wasn't going to follow what they said. They gave him his outcome, which he of course followed, which lead to precedent for the Court. Jefferson believed he was the ultimate arbiter with the Congress.
But, hypothetically, if Ted Cruz were to become President and appoint Marco Rubio as Attorney General, but the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, essentially creating gridlock, would you think it is within the purview of the President and Attorney General to no longer enforce Obamacare (the mandate, the state exchanges, and tax code) which would render Obamacare useless and basically revert to the previous system? Seemingly, the President and Attorney General could do this on any law but this type of blatant disregard for the law that the people's representatives passed. In the end, who can do what is based upon what the public allows and legitimizes e.g. the Supreme Court.
Im pretty sure that the debate about the supremacy of the Federal Government via the Constitution vs States Rights was settled in the Civil War. Most of the people who agree with your viewpoint on this seem to have lost that war, btw. In this case, the Attorney General believes the State Law to be unconstitutional.
Your argument is pretty much apples and oranges, right? You are trying to use an imagined opinion of Jefferson's to justify the same States Rights nonsense that a whole bunch of people have already died to settle.
I mean, there is a reason why its called the "Supreme Court".
First, an issue of the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution is constantly discussed in hypotheticalsJefferson said, "You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. but nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution.
That instrument meant that it's co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-0348
https://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib013811/
Second, I was not speaking to supremacy although there is no federal law addressing sexual orientation or transgender discrimination. I was speaking to enforcement of law. Again, if President Ted Cruz and Attorney General Marco Rubio said the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional in their opinion and they would not enforce the mandate/tax, would you say they are breaking the law by not enforcing it? If Florida were to pass a law stating that transgender and sexual orientation should be protected, but Pam Bondi refused to enforce it because she believed it to be unconstitutional as an overstep of government authority, what would you think?
The Supreme Court has held over and over a rational basis test for sexual orientation or omitted the discussion entirely. As a result, gays and lesbians are not considered a protected class at this point. If this were to head to the Supreme Court, they may find issue under Romer but the constitutional amendment there specifically stated that gays could not be protected under law. The Court would have to use a disparate impact argument since this law on its face is not discriminatory. However, again, SCOTUS has never given gays and lesbians protected status or assessed any issue under strict scrutiny concerning gays or lesbians, only rational basis. This NC Law says all municipalities must be in line with the Civil Rights Act of the state. State law is supreme over local law since municipalities have no sovereignty. Disparate impact, which is for protected classes unlike disparate treatment, is the strongest argument for the law being unconstitutional in part but SCOTUS has never taken that step. SCOTUS barely provides disparate impact actions at all of recent and even issues of sex (men and women) have been difficult for the Court to assess on a disparate impact level.
The bathroom issue is an interesting one. SCOTUS has never addressed transgenderism and would have to take a huge step in even recognizing transgenderism as a protected class or the lack of any rationale in having separate bathrooms by law under rational basis. They would have to walk a delicate balance. It is probably a step too far for Justice Kennedy IMO but we may see. It would be an interesting case though.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 04:34:48 PM
If you were the Attorney General of Florida and our legislature decided to reinstate Jim Crow, what would your opinion be?
I would file suit in the Courts and an order would come down tomorrow saying the law is unconstitutional since that is settled law by both SCOTUS and Congress. Otherwise, I would resign my post since it goes against my own personal morality.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 05:37:22 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 31, 2016, 05:36:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 04:34:48 PM
If you were the Attorney General of Florida and our legislature decided to reinstate Jim Crow, what would your opinion be?
I would file suit in the Courts and an order would come down tomorrow saying the law is unconstitutional since that is settled law by both SCOTUS and Congress. Otherwise, I would resign my post since it goes against my own personal morality.
So you would say that the principle of nondiscrimination is settled law?
It is settled law that segregation of races is illegal.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 05:41:02 PM
And incidentally, have you read the actual opinion issued by the Court in Windsor?
Aside from the pile of screech monkey excrement that your favorite former Supreme wrote in dissent, the majority opinion, (and therefore the actual Ruling) was pointedly clear on gender as the basis for denial of service, I should think.
Perhaps you haven't taken time to read it, or are unable to take a break from various ideas of states rights or non applicable state constitutional laws to have recollected the ruling?
I have read
Windsor in full and written memorandum on the issue for interested clients since it logically affected benefits for companies. I can assure you that SCOTUS did not discuss whether sexual orientation was a protected class. They definitely hinted at the possibility but Justice Kennedy has apparently, in
Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell, not granted protected status. Issues have revolved more around rational basis due process/equal protection, fundamental right of marriage, and in
Windsor, hinted very strongly at state's rights issues interestingly, especially that the Federal Government could not treat different marriages from different states in a disparate way. Other courts have come to protected class status, just not SCOTUS.
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 31, 2016, 04:31:11 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 31, 2016, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 02:21:07 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 31, 2016, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2016, 09:21:42 AM
wow. North Carolina's Attorney General declares the anti gay law unconstitutional and announces that his office will not be defending the law in any court.
QuoteAs reported earlier, the ACLU will be suing the state of North Carolina over it's bigoted transgender discrimination law.
In addition, a number of states an municipalities, including New York State, are banning non-essential state travel to North Carolina.
Now one person says he will not participate in defending this law, and his participation matters, a lot.
He's the state's Attorney General.
This is the equivalent of your own defense lawyer telling the judge you're guilty as sin and walking out of the courtroom. Yahoo Politics:
According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina's justice department and treasurer's office, as well as many of the state's businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.
"House Bill 2 is unconstitutional," he said. "Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2."
Attorney General does not have this discretion and is breaking the law by not enforcing the law. If the Legislature and Governor have created and authorized the law, it should be followed. If there are problems, and someone has standing, they can file suit. This is similar to the Kentucky clerk who disagreed with passing out marriage licenses to gay couples. At least she was personally opposed and just wanted someone else to do it for her. This joker won't let his office enforce it. Too bad. Writ of Mandamus anyone? LOL. It is straight out of the Obama administration's book though.
see below. it differs from state to state and its not as clearcut as you seem to believe.
Quote from: finehoe on March 30, 2016, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 30, 2016, 09:48:46 AM
...but it's not the attorney general's place to decide what laws to follow, and which are constitutional....
It's not that simple. Here's a good overview of this issue: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/state-attorneys-general-and-the-duty-to-defend
So this is a debate that goes back to the Founding. Jefferson, for example, saw the Supreme Court as an advisory body rather than a body that was the final arbiter of constitutional issues. In the end, the Courts do not have final say. The Constitutional officers that enforce the law do. In Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson told the Court he wasn't going to follow what they said. They gave him his outcome, which he of course followed, which lead to precedent for the Court. Jefferson believed he was the ultimate arbiter with the Congress.
But, hypothetically, if Ted Cruz were to become President and appoint Marco Rubio as Attorney General, but the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, essentially creating gridlock, would you think it is within the purview of the President and Attorney General to no longer enforce Obamacare (the mandate, the state exchanges, and tax code) which would render Obamacare useless and basically revert to the previous system? Seemingly, the President and Attorney General could do this on any law but this type of blatant disregard for the law that the people's representatives passed. In the end, who can do what is based upon what the public allows and legitimizes e.g. the Supreme Court.
Im pretty sure that the debate about the supremacy of the Federal Government via the Constitution vs States Rights was settled in the Civil War. Most of the people who agree with your viewpoint on this seem to have lost that war, btw. In this case, the Attorney General believes the State Law to be unconstitutional.
Your argument is pretty much apples and oranges, right? You are trying to use an imagined opinion of Jefferson's to justify the same States Rights nonsense that a whole bunch of people have already died to settle.
I mean, there is a reason why its called the "Supreme Court".
First, an issue of the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution is constantly discussed in hypotheticalsJefferson said, "You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. but nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution. That instrument meant that it's co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-0348
https://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib013811/
Second, I was not speaking to supremacy although there is no federal law addressing sexual orientation or transgender discrimination. I was speaking to enforcement of law. Again, if President Ted Cruz and Attorney General Marco Rubio said the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional in their opinion and they would not enforce the mandate/tax, would you say they are breaking the law by not enforcing it? If Florida were to pass a law stating that transgender and sexual orientation should be protected, but Pam Bondi refused to enforce it because she believed it to be unconstitutional as an overstep of government authority, what would you think?
You didn't answer this.
yawn
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2016, 11:41:12 PM
Thats because in this instance, the issue is a red herring. Whether or not a group of people has been designated a 'protected class' as the current hogwash on this issue keeps trying to point out, it still has no bearing on whether or not the State Constitution of North Carolina commands an Attorney General to defend a Law which he clearly believes to be Federally unconstitutional.
I mean, I can see why you might want to conflate these two issues, but there isn't a relevant point in doing so.
You seemed to be doubting that the general temperature of the Court is manifestly anti discriminatory in a sweeping and general way, ----especially in LGBT issues, because they are not a 'protected class' whilst simultaneously arguing in the next post that the Court itself seems to be debating whether or not LGBT people should be included as a protected class.
Which seems terribly contradictory to the rest of your own argumentation on this, frankly.
Especially in the context of Windsor.
If it is your contention that the Court struck down discriminatory prohibitions against LGBT marriage without specifically naming LGBT as a specifically protected group under the Civil Rights Act, then it seems manifest that the Court intends to rule against Discrimination even in the absence of a group designation.
Which would seem to corroborate, not contradict the position of the North Carolina Attorney General.
In fact, one is forced to that conclusion.
Seems odd that an attorney who has written briefs about Windsor for clients would miss that obvious conclusion.
I wonder if you wouldn't mind getting back to the subject of your original claim: That the State of North Carolina did not permit its Attorney General to make such decisions.
Would you mind pointing out which part of the North Carolina State Constitution you are basing this idea on?
State Constitutions can have such vagaries from one State to another. Are you, in any way, qualified to speak on the Constitution of the State of North Carolina?
Copy and paste from some left wing legal website all you want. I am just telling you the facts. Accept them if you want. The Court rarely determines discrimination on disparate impact claims...rarely. I am not saying that the Court wouldn't, because they very well could as the facts continue to come out. They would look at legislative history, intent of law, etc., all that good stuff. However, you make blanket statements about the Court and its views will not serve you well long term. Also, to state that this would be a lock for your views would also be foolish.
If you want to play some legalese games about whether there is an explicit clause stating that someone elected to enforce the laws under the Governor should actually do its job, I am happy for you. Your hypocrisy would be amusing though if Pam Bondi were to not enforce a hypothetical transgender protected class law on private citizens/businesses because it is illegal under the First Amendment's free exercise clause. Then your tune would change pretty quick. But mine would not because I believe elected officials should enforce the law.
Quote from: stephendare on April 01, 2016, 09:16:52 AM
Im not quite sure what you are talking about with the 'cut and paste' remark. Im trying to engage you in a discussion based on the questions that you've asked me directly.
And Im also not sure if you are aware of how heavily your argumentation relies on an internal double standard.
Specifically this. Your argument seems to be that the Attorney General cannot refuse to defend cases arising from this law. In fact, you argue, the Attorney General can't refuse, even if he implicitly believes it puts him in jeopardy of unConstitutional posture. You claim this---without any real knowledge of North Carolina's Constitutional framework for his office (which neither of us are qualified to speak on authoritatively) because of an inherently nonlegalistic viewpoint of his responsibilities. "If you want to play some legalese games about whether there is an explicit clause stating that someone elected to enforce the laws under the Governor should actually do its job," i.e....It should be obvious that he 'should. It must be plainly decided within the context.
But when considering his decision, the same standard apparently doesn't apply. In evaluating his reasoning, your whole belief that the answer should simply be obvious, in light of a string of Supreme Court Rulings within the past 18 month, is suddenly shoved into the basement with all the rest of the family mutants. Left there to sit in the dark until its safe for friendlier visitors to see them... You literally reverse yourself and claim now that the matter may not be plainly decided within context and base your objection on whether or not LGBT people have been officially designated a protected class.
In my opinion this is the fatal flaw within your argument.
An argument which I understand to be about whether or not the State Attorney General can or may make a decision like this.
And Id like to be clear that I disagree with you on this narrow point.
The Attorney General of North Carolina is an elected office. If he has broken the law, no doubt the Feds will step in. If he has broken the faith of the people who elected him, they will surely deny him office at the next election (although I think its a good bet that he will go on to become the new Governor of the state) Given that the legislature already has in place the remedy of hiring independent and private Counsel in many and sundry cases within the state, there is already a mechanism for remedy and a clear history of the Attorney General not representing the Legislature in each and every case which requires legal services or defense.
Based on these reasons, I think your point is moot. It is legally permissible for the Attorney General to decide what his office will defend or not defend.
That said, there is no need to conflate whether I think he can --strictly speaking within the confines of his State Constitional role,--- he should.
This is a separate question in my mind, and I will be glad to debate it with you.
Let me preface it with a few questions.
Do you believe that Kim Davis should have been arrested and forced to comply with the Supreme Courts Ruling on gay marriage, even though technically the State of Kentucky had not yet amended its own laws to reflect the Constitutional ruling?
She was, after all, a duly elected officer of the State (like the NC AG) and had no clearcut State Law directing her to reverse policy.
Do you think that the Supreme Court of Kentucky shared her views, despite not having already ruled on State Law in the matter? Do you believe that SCOTUS agreed with her reasoning?
When Congress passed Obamacare, and the President signed it into law, were the Republican Governors, including Pam Biondi's boss, Rick Scott. within their rights refusing to implement the new law? You may remember that they wanted Constitutional clarification (specifically from your buddy Scalia) before rolling out the Federal Law.
I looked up NC's constitutional laws. The Governor's office must execute the laws. The Attorney General's duties are all statutorily provided. Even if there is some ambiguity this time around, if he were to really not perform his duties, they can revise his job description to make it crystal clear.
§ 114-2. Duties.
It shall be the duty of the Attorney General:
(1) To defend all actions in the appellate division in which the State shall be
interested, or a party, and to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal
in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or
interested.
(2) To represent all State departments, agencies, institutions, commissions,
bureaus or other organized activities of the State which receive support in
whole or in part from the State. Where the Attorney General represents a State
department, agency, institution, commission, bureau, or other organized
activity of the State which receives support in whole or in part from the State,
the Attorney General shall act in conformance with Rule 1.2 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct of the North Carolina State Bar.
As for Kim Davis, she should have done her job or resigned. If Kentucky lawmakers wanted to create some religious accommodations allowing for someone else to provide marriage licenses in issues of conscience then that could be permissible under the law. One way or another, gay couples should have received their marriage licenses.
The interesting issue with Obamacare was they screwed up the wording within the ACA that gave the states the power to set up the exchanges. Even Obama's people were calling the wording very poor. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. Everything that was not within the power provided to the states should have been implemented. The whole program really could not be implemented though until the mandate issue (federal purview) and exchanges issue (whether the Feds could set up exchanges if states did not) were decided in SCOTUS.
NC Gov. McCrory will be on Meet The Press this Sunday.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article72037457.html
He also filled a legislative vacancy with an openly gay man. Interestingly enough, it wasn't his idea. The vacancy was caused by the death of a Democrat House member. By law, the local incumbent party nominates someone to fill vacancies and the Governor is required to appoint them.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article71903617.html
Since HB2 in went into effect in NC, the titans of business have been openly concerned about lost economic development prospects, but few have put hard numbers to the impact. This article does cite numbers and they are brutal if truly representative.
On Urban Planet someone posted that Tampa and Jacksonville are in the running for the PayPal jobs that Charlotte lost. Since Tampa was the runner-up the first time, I would think they would be in the catbird seat.
QuoteThe first question at Wednesday's state of the market panel from moderator Richard Kelley, senior vice president of InterFace Conference Group, was about HB 2's impact on North and South Carolina real estate.
"If you look at our business and core offerings, (there are) several different areas where we help our clients," said Chris Schaaf, executive vice president at JLL. "One of those is major (company) relocations to the state of North Carolina.
"It's come to an absolute screeching halt," Schaaf continued. "Those inquires have essentially gone away."
Schaaf and other panelists throughout the day agreed that the biggest concern in real estate over HB 2 are for companies that had quietly short-listed North Carolina as a place to grow or relocate, but have now crossed Charlotte, Raleigh and other cities off their lists.
"It's much less about PayPal, it's much less about Maroon 5 not coming here, it's much less about Cirque du Soleil — it's more about the other companies, events, concerts that nobody has even heard about that were considering coming to N.C.," but now aren't, Schaaf said. Just weeks after announcing it would bring a 400-job operations center to Charlotte, PayPal (NASDAQ: PYPL) pulled the plug on those plans, citing HB 2.
At JLL, Schaaf said the firm tries to internally track the amount of inquires by companies looking to create jobs in North Carolina.
Since the bill was signed into law, that number is down 90%, Schaaf said.
"It's having an impact on (tenant) prospects," said John Ball, senior leasing agent at Trinity Partners, who is leasing Portman Holdings' 19-story office tower under construction at 615 S. College St. "Hopefully, it's not a long-term problem. The companies that are a year or year-and-a-half away are still keeping Charlotte on the list, but the problem (is) the ones that have to make a decision today."
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2016/06/02/hb-2-election-uptown-office-market-big-topics-at.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2016/06/02/hb-2-election-uptown-office-market-big-topics-at.html)
rest of the state seems to be doing ok.
http://edpnc.com/about-the-edpnc/news-events/
Quote from: fsquid on June 03, 2016, 10:50:37 AM
rest of the state seems to be doing ok.
http://edpnc.com/about-the-edpnc/news-events/
That may or may not be true, but the website you link to doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest.
Quote from: finehoe on June 03, 2016, 11:36:08 AM
Quote from: fsquid on June 03, 2016, 10:50:37 AM
rest of the state seems to be doing ok.
http://edpnc.com/about-the-edpnc/news-events/
That may or may not be true, but the website you link to doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest.
neither does a bunch of real estate folks who's quotes cannot be validated.
Quote from: fsquid on June 03, 2016, 11:46:39 AM
Quote from: finehoe on June 03, 2016, 11:36:08 AM
Quote from: fsquid on June 03, 2016, 10:50:37 AM
rest of the state seems to be doing ok.
http://edpnc.com/about-the-edpnc/news-events/
That may or may not be true, but the website you link to doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest.
neither does a bunch of real estate folks who's quotes cannot be validated.
What does it benefit then to broadcast to the world that prospects are drying up? Given their personal interests they would only have incentive to downplay the impact.
NC may still be doing fine. But it's a fact that they're losing out on businesses that otherwise would have been slam dunks if they hadn't pulled this nonsense.
What sucks is that Charlotte's getting hit the hardest, and they're the city that *passed* an HRO.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/development/article82819767.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/development/article82819767.html)
HB2 hurting leasing for speculative office buildings.
QuoteFor the developers planning to open 1.5 million square feet of new office space in Charlotte within the next year or so, the timing of the controversy over House Bill 2 couldn't be much worse.
New office towers are rising across the city, from Ballantyne to uptown, and almost all of them are being built as speculative projects, meaning they don't have an anchor tenant yet. The new law has put Charlotte and North Carolina in the crosshairs of a national firestorm at exactly the time developers hoped to be luring new tenants and making splashy announcements about the first occupants of their new office towers.
"The timing on this is pretty sour," said Maxwell Hanks of Spectrum Properties, which is developing a 25-story office tower at 300 South Tryon Street. They have an anchor tenant, Babson Capital, but still have about half the building left to lease. It opens in about a year.
Developers are particularly keen to land new tenants from outside the market, companies that want to open a Charlotte office or relocate significant operations to the city. That helps grow the overall office market more rapidly and fills new space without simply shuffling existing companies already in Charlotte between office space.
But it's those companies most likely to be put off by HB2, a new state law passed in March that nullified a Charlotte ordinance which would have expanded non-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals. Last month, the Charlotte Chamber said inbound inquiries about new economic development were down 58 percent since lawmakers passed the bill in March, and client visits down 69 percent from the same time last year.
"You really want as much demand from out of the market as possible," said Hanks. He said he's still seeing "pretty good" interest from prospective tenants, but is concerned some companies won't relocate to Charlotte. "I think HB2 really hampers their ability to do that. Intuitively and logically, it's got to hurt...Perception is reality on the national stage."
No major leases have been announced yet for any of the speculative buildings planned or under construction.
In the most dramatic protest by a company so far, PayPal canceled a planned 400-employee office in Charlotte just weeks after the project was first announced. They had planned to lease office space in University City.
Now, because of the bad publicity, developers worry that they're being crossed off potential clients' lists before they even know they were under consideration.
"We don't know if there are folks that would be calling us from outside the market if we didn't have HB2," said Mike Harrell of Beacon Partners. They're building a 7-story, speculative office building in Dilworth that will open next year. "Everybody wants as many people coming to lease headquarters space as possible. I don't think there's a lot of those deals out there now. It (HB2) could be why we're not seeing a lot of out-of-town prospects."
Harrell said the new space coming online in the Charlotte market will get leased, even if it takes a little longer than anticipated. But if the issue drags on for months or even years, making it less attractive for companies to relocate to Charlotte, the next round of office development might be sidelined.
Still, developers are optimistic in the long term. Charlotte's economy remains strong, the city is adding jobs and they're confident state lawmakers and city leaders will reach a compromise – even if they're not sure how. And last year, the vacancy rate for Class A office space dropped to 12.6 percent, according to Integra Realty Resources, the lowest it's been in Charlotte since 2008.
"The big picture is still really solid," said Hanks.
John Ball, senior leasing agent with Trinity Partners, is working to lease 615 South College, a 19-story office tower under construction. He said that while it would be ideal to land big tenants from outside the market, many Charlotte companies are growing and can also take more space.
"In a perfect world, yes," he said. "We feel confident we can lease it to existing companies and growing companies in the market."
For now, he said the controversy puts people pitching out-of-town companies at a disadvantage to office projects in other cities.
"Anytime you have to explain something your competition doesn't," said Ball, "that's not a good thing."
Brian Leary, of Crescent Communities, said the perception problem extends beyond office space. He said he was recently talking with brokers about marketing a planned new warehouse and industrial complex just over the state line in South Carolina. One of the first things they said the project has going for it: Since it's not in North Carolina, there's no HB2 issue to deal with when talking to possible tenants.
"It's something people want to avoid," said Leary. The reason, he said, is potential negative backlash and criticism, not anything actually negative with the state's fundamentals. "If they could sign a lease and it never get out, that would be one story."
He said the issue is even coming up now when he talks with potential investors.
"It's the real deal," said Leary. "When I talk to potential equity partners, they say listen, I've got 49 other states that aren't causing heartburn with my funders."
Still, Leary is hopeful that the controversy will fade after a deal is reached. He said Crescent is still talking to potential tenants for Tryon Place, a planned office tower at Stonewall and Tryon streets the company hopes to start work on later this year.
"I do believe once this gets resolved, the hangover will be fairly short," said Leary. "However, the longer you go the greater the risk of the cure harming the patient."
Won't be long before the NBA pulls next year's All Star game from Charlotte.
And it is only a matter of time before the NCAA starts pulling events from the state. Greensboro is slated to host opening round games of the basketball tournament next year.
You can add 730 to the number of jobs lost because of HB2:
North Carolina's House Bill 2 played a deciding role in a Washington-based real estate company choosing Richmond, Va., over Charlotte for a 730-job expansion, real estate sources told the Observer Tuesday.
CoStar Group, a real estate research firm, announced Monday that it had chosen Richmond for its research operations center after a national search. The company said it expected to create 730 jobs and invest $250 million into the "local economy."
CoStar officials had earlier focused their search on a new office tower under construction at 615 S. College Street in uptown Charlotte, where it would have been an anchor tenant, said the sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. But the company's board rejected the location because of HB2, which limits protections for LGBT individuals, the sources said.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article110349597.html#storylink=cpy
It looks like Charlotte repealed the ordinance this morning and the State is expected to repeal HB2 tomorrow.
http://www.wral.com/charlotte-acts-1st-hb2-repeal-could-come-this-week/16353736/
So if I'm reading this correctly, Charlotte has repealed their HRO (which was rendered invalid by HB2), and now the state government will rescind the state law.
So bottom line, LGBT folks still have no legal protections in NC.
Is this correct?
Quote from: finehoe on December 20, 2016, 11:30:39 AM
So if I'm reading this correctly, Charlotte has repealed their HRO (which was rendered invalid by HB2), and now the state government will rescind the state law.
So bottom line, LGBT folks still have no legal protections in NC.
Is this correct?
it means the law goes back to being silent on the issue I believe which is good enough for the NBA and NCAA
While it may be good enough for the NBA, it's no longer good enough for the NCAA. They have issued some new guidance and the very first question asked of sites bidding for events is something like: do you have state or city protections for fans and competitors?
In essence, HB2 has moved the ball from the position of no-protections, fine, to no-protections, not-so-fine-we're-going-to-look-at-Atlanta-and-Orlando-and-Tampa.
Quote from: stephendare on December 20, 2016, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: finehoe on December 20, 2016, 11:30:39 AM
So if I'm reading this correctly, Charlotte has repealed their HRO (which was rendered invalid by HB2), and now the state government will rescind the state law.
So bottom line, LGBT folks still have no legal protections in NC.
Is this correct?
That is true, but it appears to be an honor killing.
The plan is for modified HRO's to be widely passed. But they are HROs that do not protect transgendered people.
Quote from: fsquid on December 20, 2016, 12:35:42 PM
Quote from: finehoe on December 20, 2016, 11:30:39 AM
So if I'm reading this correctly, Charlotte has repealed their HRO (which was rendered invalid by HB2), and now the state government will rescind the state law.
So bottom line, LGBT folks still have no legal protections in NC.
Is this correct?
it means the law goes back to being silent on the issue I believe which is good enough for the NBA and NCAA
This is correct. The current HB2 actively discriminates against transgender people, and prevents local governments from protecting any LGBT people. The compromise is that HB2 will be rescinded, but (some) local governments will pass ordinances that protect LGB people but not T. It's a deal with the devil to remove state-sponsored discrimination.
I don't mean to argue fine points, but I don't believe there's any plan in NC or elsewhere to pass 80s style HROs that cover only based on sexual orientation.
When HB2 goes away, local governments in NC can again pass fully inclusive HROs that include gender identity. Whether or not Charlotte is first out of the gate, I'd look for Asheville to be close to the top of the list of cities and counties looking to test the post-HB2 world.
Sounds like there aren't enough votes at the state level to rescind HB2.
Fascinating. Then that means Charlotte will retain its defunct HRO.
(Which I'm selfishly happy for as some litigation pending in NC requires HB2 in place for the courts to act...)
HB2 repeal bogs down as support unclear
RALEIGH
The General Assembly returned to Raleigh on Wednesday to vote on a repeal of House Bill 2, but that goal was bogged down by reluctant legislators who either support the current law or are concerned that Charlotte's city council isn't being straightforward about its intentions.
House Republicans have been meeting behind closed doors since convening the fifth special session of the year on Wednesday morning. House Rules Chairman David Lewis, a Republican from Harnett County, said shortly before convening there weren't enough members of the GOP caucus at that time who support repeal to approve doing that.
"I felt pretty good about where we were yesterday," Lewis told reporters. "I thought Charlotte had done a full repeal and we were going to come in and consider the same thing. I don't know where we are right now."
The Charlotte City Council without notice on Monday said it had voted to repeal its anti-discrimination ordinance that had led to the passage of HB2 earlier this year on condition that the General Assembly would repeal HB2 by the end of the year. Gov. Pat McCrory called the legislature back into a Wednesday session to do that.
But on Tuesday evening it surfaced that Charlotte had not repealed its entire anti-discrimination ordinance. The city attorney said he thought the part of the ordinance that was repealed — the so-called bathroom provision — would satisfy the legislature's concern that special accommodation not be given to those who want to use public restrooms that do not coincide with their gender at birth.
The council met early Wednesday to resolve those concerns by repealing the rest of the ordinance, which prohibited discrimination in public contracts in the city. The action by Charlotte on Wednesday morning did not set a Dec. 31 deadline, as the earlier deal had.
But it was enough to shake up fragile negotiations among House Republicans who spent four hours in a caucus meeting Tuesday night, as well as Wednesday's meetings.
"It seems like a small thing, but it's not," Lewis said. "We're trying to act in good faith, and if it was a legitimate mistake that Charlotte made, that's one thing. If it was something else, that really hurts my ability to stand up and tell members it's a re-set. We've said all along we think re-set is the way to go."
Repealing HB2 would eliminate a controversial law that lost North Carolina millions of dollars in revenue and major sporting events in protest.
The House did meet briefly Wednesday morning to adopt rules to operate under during the special session. That's when a knot of conservative Republican opposition surfaced, with 10 members voting against holding the session.
Rep. Jeff Collins, a Republican from Rocky Mount, said on the floor that the session was unconstitutional because there was no "extraordinary occasion" as the governor's proclamation declared, and all business could be delayed until next year. Rep. Michael Speciale, a New Bern Republican, and Rep. Larry Pittman, a Concord Republican, spoke in support of Collins. But House Speaker Tim Moore ruled Collins' protest motion out of order.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article122208429.html#storylink=cpy
Senate votes it down and the House doesn't vote on it
NCAA giving NC a matter of days to repeal HB2 or be frozen out of tournaments for six years
Writing on behalf of the N.C. Sports Association, Scott Dupree, executive director of the Raleigh Sports Alliance, told lawmakers that NCAA committees are deciding this month where to hold events through 2022, including basketball tournament games in Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro.
Dupree said N.C. cities and schools have submitted 133 bids for NCAA events with a potential economic impact of $250 million.
"In a matter of days, our state's sports tourism industry will suffer crushing, long-term losses and will essentially close its doors to NCAA business," he wrote legislators. "Our window to act is closing rapidly."
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article131003339.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article131003339.html)
Its still weird that the NCAA pulls them out of NC but not Memphis, Nashville, Tulsa, Witchita which also doesn't have a HRO I believe.
Quote from: fsquid on February 07, 2017, 12:28:56 PM
Its still weird that the NCAA pulls them out of NC but not Memphis, Nashville, Tulsa, Witchita which also doesn't have a HRO I believe.
It's not (just) a matter of not having an HRO. It's a matter of having HB2 which enforces legalized discrimination.
North Carolina Governor Expected to Sign Repeal of Bathroom Law
Both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly voted in favor of a bill on Thursday that would repeal the controversial law affecting transgender bathroom use in public buildings, part of a compromise worked out earlier in the week between Republican legislative leaders and the Democratic governor.
But with anger rising over the compromise from groups on both the left and the right, it was unclear whether the anticipated signing of the new bill into law would extricate North Carolina from the roiling national controversy over the proper levels of legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The bill passed the Senate, 32 to 16, in a late morning vote after only brief discussion, and passed the House in the afternoon by a vote of 70 to 48 after fiery denunciations by some conservative and liberal members. It now requires the signature of Gov. Roy Cooper, who has said that he supported the bill.
Phil Berger, a Republican and the Senate leader, acknowledged that many people were probably not pleased by the compromise, which would repeal the current law, known as House Bill 2. However, he said, "compromise sometimes is difficult, and this bill represents that."
House Bill 2 was signed in March 2016 by the governor at the time, Pat McCrory, a Republican. It curbs legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and, in perhaps its most contentious measure, requires transgender people in public buildings to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate.
The new bill repeals House Bill 2, creates a moratorium on local nondiscrimination ordinances through 2020 and leaves regulation of bathrooms to state lawmakers.
In a brief statement on Wednesday, Mr. Cooper — whose razor-thin victory over Mr. McCrory in November was due in large part to voter frustration over the national backlash over House Bill 2 — said that the measure was "not a perfect deal, but it repeals House Bill 2 and begins to repair our reputation."
In the House, Representative Deb Butler, one of the state's few openly gay legislators, was among those who said the compromise would not ameliorate "the stigma and suffering" associated with House Bill 2. "We would rather suffer HB2 than to have this body, one more time, deny us the full and unfettered protection of the law," she said.
Representative Bert Jones, a Republican, also opposed the compromise, noting his belief that God "created us male and female," and said that it was not discriminatory for him to hold that belief.
"It troubles me today that we are doing this in this manner," he said.
But in the end, more legislators appeared to believe that the state needed to do something to end the boycotts prompted by the existing law. Senator Dan Blue, a Democrat and the minority leader, said that the compromise "brings an end to an economic threat."
Gay rights advocates have been harshly critical of the proposed compromise. Cathryn Oakley, senior legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, said that it would leave lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people with no statewide anti-discrimination ordinance and no ability to seek such protections from local government for a number of years.
"What that means for the L.G.B.T. community is that we continue to be boxed out of nondiscrimination protections," she said.
Chris Sgro, executive director of the gay rights group Equality North Carolina, said that the proposal "keeps North Carolina as the only state in the country obsessed with where trans people use the restroom through law."
The conservative NC Values Coalition, meanwhile, was urging its followers to contact lawmakers and tell them not to repeal House Bill 2, arguing that the existing law guarantees that men won't be allowed "into women's and little girl's bathrooms and showers."
"No NCAA basketball game, corporation, or entertainment concert is worth even one little girl being harmed or frightened in a bathroom," Tami Fitzgerald, executive director, wrote in an email. "She should not lose her privacy and dignity to a boy in a locker room."
The announcement of a compromise on Wednesday came after months of acrimony over the bill and a seeming inability to find middle ground after numerous efforts. Conservative legislators, citing safety concerns, have been worried about the idea of men using women's restrooms since the Charlotte city government, in February 2016, passed an ordinance that allowed transgender people to use the restroom of their choice. Charlotte officials repealed that ordinance in December as part of one of the efforts to broker a compromise in the state capital, but that effort failed dramatically during a special legislative session.
This week, a new flurry of action over House Bill 2 came as the N.C.A.A. warned the state that it could lose the opportunity to host championship sporting events through 2022. The league had already relocated championship tournament games that would have been played in North Carolina during this academic year, including the Division I men's basketball tournament.
The possibility of further punishment placed tremendous pressure on lawmakers in the basketball-obsessed state, a pressure exacerbated by the fact that the University of North Carolina men's basketball team has reached the N.C.A.A. tournament's Final Four and will be squaring off against the University of Oregon on Saturday night.
The Atlantic Coast Conference also moved its neutral-site championships out of North Carolina this year in response to House Bill 2, and the National Basketball Association moved its All-Star game to New Orleans from Charlotte.
Some local news outlets reported this week the N.C.A.A. had set a Thursday deadline for the state to address the bill. Officials at the association could not be reached for comment Wednesday. A league statement last week stated, "Absent any change in the law, our position remains the same regarding hosting current or future events in the state."
Some conservatives in the House said that it felt like the legislature was caving to pressure from th N.C.A.A., and lamented the fact. Mr. Jones said that two flags should now be flown outside the legislative building: that of "a certain intercollegiate athletic association" and "a white flag."
The Associated Press released an analysis this week that estimated that House Bill 2 would cost North Carolina more than $3.7 billion in lost business in the next 12 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/north-carolina-senate-acts-to-repeal-restrictive-bathroom-law.html
It's very annoying that reporters are characterizing what happened in North Carolina today as a repeal. It was more of a replace.
It may be enough to gain the support of the NCAA, but LGBTQ and related groups are raising a ruckus and asking the NCAA to maintain their ban on events until all of the HB 2 is repealed, without exception.
North Carolina's Bait-and-Switch on Transgender Restroom Law
Facing a deadline to do away with a law that turned North Carolina into a national pariah by denying the right of transgender people to use public restrooms of their choice, state lawmakers rashly settled on a terrible compromise.
On Thursday, they repealed the law in name but not in substance, hoping to assuage organizations and employers that have boycotted the state to protest its discriminatory law. The National Collegiate Athletic Association had given state politicians until Thursday to get rid of the law before it would resume holding championship games in the state.
ll those who have taken a principled stance against the law, known as H.B. 2, should stand firm. The law's revision would deprive North Carolinians of protection from discrimination for years, and retains the odious notion that transgender people are inherently dangerous.
"We can never compromise on fundamental civil rights," William Barber II, the president of the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said in a call with journalists Thursday morning. "It was never just a bathroom bill. It's a bill that discriminates against so many people in so many ways."
The original bill, which was signed into law in March 2016 by Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, was in retaliation to an ordinance the city of Charlotte approved weeks earlier barring discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender people. Charlotte's measure established that transgender people had a right to use public restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. The state law mandated that transgender people use restrooms that matched the gender marker listed on their birth certificate, and barred localities from enacting laws to protect gays, lesbians and transgender people from discrimination.
It's mystifying that Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat whose narrow election in November was seen as something of a referendum on H.B. 2, would regard the amended law as a suitable compromise. The repeal law did away with the birth certificate requirement, which was unenforceable all along because it would have turned law enforcement officials into genital inspectors. But it bars schools and other government entities from adopting policies allowing transgender people to use the restroom of their choice. And it still prohibits anti-discrimination ordinances until 2020.
Mr. Cooper said the compromise with the Republican-controlled legislature was "not perfect," but he held out hope that the repeal would start to "repair our reputation." He and other Democrats who supported the compromise said they concluded that a modest step toward undoing the law was the best they could hope for while Republicans have veto-proof majorities in the legislature. That is misguided. The deal was struck days after The Associated Press reported that the backlash against the law would cost North Carolina at least $3.7 billion in business over 12 years.
Getting employers and organizations to steer business and jobs to North Carolina should require more than window dressing. State officials must address the underlying problem: a law that enshrines discrimination against minorities and perpetuates harmful stereotypes about transgender people. Until they do, business as usual will represent an endorsement of bigotry and intolerance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/opinion/north-carolinas-bait-and-switch-on-transgender-restroom-law.html
Terrible compromise, but probably the only thing that would have gotten through in the current climate. North Carolina is a very weird place: largely progressive/moderate cities and college towns that are seeing huge growth largely from non-natives, surrounded by bright red rural areas and small towns that are more traditionally Southern in mentality. The college system is excellent, but have the college towns have the starkest town-vs.-gown divide of any place I've ever seen. It is inevitable that contention of this magnitude would come up there.