Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you read any news than the news you want to read? It's not just the NCAA? Or are you unaware of fortune 500 companies pulling out plans in the state?
If I recall, this thread is about the NCAA trying to force the state's hand. To that, I say eff them.
We can debate about other companies in another thread if you want. But this thread is about the NCAA's ridiculous threat.
If I recall, this thread is about the NCAA trying to force the state's hand. To that, I say eff them.
We can debate about other companies in another thread if you want. But this thread is about the NCAA's ridiculous threat.
You said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripes17
Doesn't bother me one bit. NCAA can go away for all I care. I'd be PO'd though if the state gov't let this group intimidate them into changing a state law on their behalf.
Moore's trying to write something to walk the tightrope. Unlike Berger, his constituents run the gamut. It's been in the local news that Moore is trying to come up with something to make everyone happy. Unfortunately, Berger wants the bathroom bs to stay. I doubt that anyone's going to be very happy.
Overnight, House Minority Leader Darren Jackson suggested that those discussion had included a religious freedom bill that would give people the right to sue the state or local governments if they think their religious freedom is impinged. Jackson, D-Wake, distributed images of a bill that he said was in the mix.
But Moore denied that language, sometimes called a RFRA bill, was part of what's being discussed.
"There is no RFRA," Moore said. "There has been discussion of a conscious protection provision."
It's not clear what the difference between those two things might be.
Business leaders have said privately, Moore said, that they now wish they hadn't joined the boycott of North Carolina and want to find a way to get off "the bandwagon of House Bill 2 backlash."
"I think there are a lot of folks out there who felt like, if enough people piled on, that this General Assembly would fold, and I think it's been very clear, one year later, we have not folded," he said.
While lawmakers search for something that is more palatable to the business community, Moore pledged that the final product would still restrict the use of restrooms by transgender people and would still block local governments from passing any nondiscrimination ordinances that go beyond federal law, meaning they wouldn't include protections for the LGBT community.
He said his ultimate goal is to align North Carolina's laws with those of neighboring states while still keeping requirements that men and women use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their gender on the books.
"I think a lot of people don't want North Carolina being the poster child on some of these social issues either way," he said.
The trouble with RFRA legislation is virtually all businesses and professionals are in some way working under some manner of government license (business license, professional accreditation and licenses), so anti-discrimination statues (public accommodation and the like) are tossed out with baby's bath water. Very chilling, for example if you're seeking birth control in an undeserved market in terms of pharmaceutical access.
Frankly I'd be happy, should they attempt to push this through, would be a provision that businesses and professionals choosing to exercise their religious freedom to withhold service have the nature of that preference be publicly posted at the place of business. "We will not dispense birth control" "We will not make wedding cakes for same sex weddings" "Restroom use only for birth certificate gender assignment" . Of course they would fire back that it's a personal decision, but that doesn't wash once the act has been committed. You want to play that game?, then own it. Let's see how many folks will hang that sign on their storefront.
Thanks, that's more detail than I had heard. I live in Moore's hometown. I've only run into one person, a native of rural Pennsylvania, who was happy with HB2. Natives & transplants are unhappy with HB2, here, but the natives blame Berger for it.
Thanks, that's more detail than I had heard. I live in Moore's hometown. I've only run into one person, a native of rural Pennsylvania, who was happy with HB2. Natives & transplants are unhappy with HB2, here, but the natives blame Berger for it.
I can't help but wonder if Moore would've been in favor of a full repeal if it wasn't for Berger being in the way.
So the NCAA is just focused on money? What sponsor is supporting their games in Cuba and China and exhibition game in North Korea but would not support a game in NC? Lets see some facts, some numbers. Have you seen any polling on the percentage of basketball fans that would not watch a game played in NC because of HB2? I would love to see your facts since you seem to have all the answers. Enlighten us.
Do you really think for 1 sec that the NCAA isn't a business?
Games in Cuba and China are about expanding their "market share"... For instance, Alibaba sponsored the China deal:
As far as facts and numbers, I don't see how you could possibly argue that an event hosted in NC would be better for NC economically than an event hosted in... say SC. I mean, really - the numbers are simple - an event hosted outside NC nets NC ZERO economically. An event hosted in NC would be greater than zero... hotels, restaurants, etc.
My entire point is that the fans are going to attend and watch the game regardless... polling, percentages? What are you even talking about? If the event is going to occur and people are going to watch, the fact that it is NOT in NC will be a net loss to NC. You seem to insinuate that is not true... or you are very confused.
So, please enlighten me on how less events in NC is better for NC.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,678,989 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM117
I can't help but wonder if Moore would've been in favor of a full repeal if it wasn't for Berger being in the way.
That's my suspicion, but, not being a mind reader, don't know for sure. I do know that there's something that Moore wants badly enough that he'd probably be more than happy to do a deal with Cooper. Moore's reputation, around here, is that he will do deals, & party affiliations aren't deal breakers. This is a purple area. I think that if Berger was gone, the problem would be gone.
I think that if Berger was gone, the problem would be gone.
That's my thinking. I watched Cooper's State of the State address and Berger's response live (I can pull in UNC-TV ch. 26 from Greensboro from here) and Berger's response made me want to wreck my TV.
As long as Berger is running the show, HB2 will never go away unless the courts strike it down. This tidbit from this article convinced me of that. Remember how Berger wanted a moratorium during the fiasco last December? Check this BS out.
But with the continued threat of lost jobs and the NCAA blackballing North Carolina from hosting championship events for the next six years, the governor said Wednesday he feels compelled to compromise.
"I would support a House Bill 2 repeal with a moratorium with a definite end date," Cooper told WRAL News during a stop in Wayne County. "I think it's important that we try to negotiate something."
Various House Bill 2 repeal bills have been filed in the General Assembly in the past two months, ranging from outright appeals to measures that would allow for local votes on proposed nondiscrimination ordinances.
Cooper said he supports some of the ideas but not others.
"I think it's clear that we've got to compromise," he said. "My principles have been that any compromise that gets us toward eliminating discrimination while bringing back the jobs, the sports and the events, then I'm going to be for it, and I think that a repeal with some type of short, definite moratorium would be something that I could support."
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger said it's too late for him to back a repeal with a moratorium on local nondiscrimination ordinances.
"I think, unfortunately, that window is not open," Berger, R-Rockingham, said when he heard of Cooper's new stance.
So now that Cooper is willing to accept the moratorium (which is what Berger wanted at the beginning), it's no longer ok for Berger. I don't think there's anybody in the GA that's as big of a spiteful ass**** as he is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think there's anybody in the GA that's as big of a spiteful ass**** as he is. 
