U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2016, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Noth Caccalacca
5,553 posts, read 6,667,262 times
Reputation: 4837

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtnluver8956 View Post
What the hell. Only covers state employees?

So main outcome of this? State employees have LGBT protection. That's it. Discrimination cases can't be brought to state court still. And Bathroom Ordinance still struck down. Companies are sure as hell still going to leave the state still. Pat must think they are so stupid and will fall for it.
I guess under his "diminished thinking", state employees are 1st class North Carolina citizens and the rest of us are 2nd class citizens subject to the "vagaries of the marketplace" in respect to our civil rights. Gov Pat's "I got mine ...too bad for you!" Isn't he a real piece of s...!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2016, 05:08 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,592 posts, read 12,289,398 times
Reputation: 15486
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy37 View Post
Why would someone from the LGBT be protected as a guest when I don't have those same protections? A privately owned restaurant can refuse service to anyone. They can chose to refuse service to me, to you, to anyone ...



... Again, why should there be human rights protection for the gay customer and not for the heterosexual customer? ...
I think you are mistaken. Many people believe if a business owner operates a Public Accommodation he or she can refuse to serve anyone they like. Not true. Open a restaurant and refuse to serve Black folks. Open a hotel and refuse to take bookings from Jewish folks. You are liable to be sued and get slapped with criminal penalties and heavy fines. Did you know that?

A business owner can eject a customer because of legally objectionable behavior or conduct - such as "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Certainly if a person is abusive, threatening, or even loud you can politely ask them to leave.

You can not put a sign that says 'No Blacks" or 'No Irish' or 'No Buddhists' or 'No Handicapped' or 'No Gays' in your business.

I am a landlord. Every landlord in my state - and I'm pretty sure it's for all the other state - are given instructions when they get their business license whom they cannot discriminate against in housing.

Heterosexuals are covered in all states and municipalities that have the words "sexual orientation" in their ordinances and codes. "Heterosexual" is a sexual orientation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 06:00 PM
 
294 posts, read 170,452 times
Reputation: 626
[quote=skinsguy37;43691927]Why would someone from the LGBT be protected as a guest when I don't have those same protections? A privately owned restaurant can refuse service to anyone. They can chose to refuse service to me, to you, to anyone.



WOW just WOW............sometimes google can be your best friend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 06:41 PM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
21,854 posts, read 27,128,289 times
Reputation: 8923
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEmissary View Post
I guess under his "diminished thinking", state employees are 1st class North Carolina citizens and the rest of us are 2nd class citizens subject to the "vagaries of the marketplace" in respect to our civil rights. Gov Pat's "I got mine ...too bad for you!" Isn't he a real piece of s...!
"A solution looking for a problem. . ." That says it all. Someone should tell him that HB2 was a solution looking for a problem. It was a list of solutions looking for a problem.

I have to agree, Emissary, he is a real piece of work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
3,680 posts, read 1,399,862 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyKayak View Post
Read the executive order before assumptions . Link to the executive order is in post 9




North Carolina law allows private businesses and nonprofit employers to establish their own non-discrimination employment policies;

Adding sexual orientation to state clause is great for LGB state employees
City goverments can have their own nondiscrimination policies
Companies can have like it was before have their own non-discrimination policy

Best part is the way Charlotte oridnance should had been written is
Yea too bad it's a order and the bill overrides it. They have to write legislation to allow someone to sue for discrimination in state courts. So basically the city can have non-discrimination ordinances but still can't enforce it in state court. So it renders this executive order useless except if you are a state employee. You obviously like it like you likes HB2. Amazing really...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 08:56 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,722,309 times
Reputation: 11120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atony View Post
The reality is LGBT people were never protected in North Carolina though, even before HB2. By adding the clause about state employees this executive order actually gives more rights to LGBT citizens statewide than we had before, it's sad, but it's true.

It was only local governments and businesses that have instituted laws against discrimination of LGBT people, and this order gives them back the right to do so which HB2 took away (assuming I am reading everything correctly).
It isn't so much that nothing has changed vis-a-vis the past as it is about how HB2 prevents any progress that would surely come in time. Charlotte was the first city to move in that direction and others would have surely followed in short order. Clearly it was paramount to stop the ordinance from becoming effective for the Republican leadership. All I can figure is that generating fear as a political tool is much stronger before something goes into effect than it would be to sustain that fear once the ordinance took effect.

Now that the backlash is in full swing to their backlash, the governor is in a pickle. He's losing jobs and revenues in an election year. He puts out his executive order and some periphery statements about what he would like to see done in the upcoming short session to backtrack parts of the law. However, even with his executive order, it's very obvious that the power (money) behind the NC Republican party does not want to extend human rights to the entire LGBT community and it continues to use the bathroom scare as the mechanism by which to make it happen.

The irony might come if all of this tightrope walking isn't enough and the Republican led government has to cave and extend basic human rights to lgbt citizens to stop the bleeding. But, there's a silver lining in all of this for the Republicans. If they did add protections for lgbt citizens to a modified HB2 law, they can always brag in twenty years that they (and not the Democrats) brought lgbt equality to NC when it will be seen as less of a big deal to future generations. Maybe the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner on this one and their only way out is to be reluctant heros to the lgbt community?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
5,748 posts, read 4,196,483 times
Reputation: 3811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atony View Post
mod cut

It is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion, gender, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap in the state of North Carolina (and nationwide for that matter).

Do you not also feel it should be illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation (or gender identity)? Many states have passed such laws. Many local governments in NC also passed such laws, until HB2 took away their ability to do so.
You're not understanding what I am saying. Yes, I think it is wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, but you guys are only thinking about this from one angle. If an ordinance is passed forcing all businesses, public and private, to have all-gender bathrooms, while that "solves" the issue with transgenders and bathrooms, it then creates a privacy issue for the rest of us who are not transgender. So, an ordinance passed on the basis of making a certain section of our population "comfortable" has in turn, made the rest of us uncomfortable. It discriminates against those of us who do not wish to relieve ourselves in the presence of the opposite sex.

And before you say anything about having used the restroom with a transgender at some point in my life, I am not talking about transgenders. I'm talking about that 14 year old girl who should not be exposed to a man's genitalia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 06:33 AM
 
398 posts, read 366,982 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy37 View Post
You're not understanding what I am saying. Yes, I think it is wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, but you guys are only thinking about this from one angle. If an ordinance is passed forcing all businesses, public and private, to have all-gender bathrooms, while that "solves" the issue with transgenders and bathrooms, it then creates a privacy issue for the rest of us who are not transgender. So, an ordinance passed on the basis of making a certain section of our population "comfortable" has in turn, made the rest of us uncomfortable. It discriminates against those of us who do not wish to relieve ourselves in the presence of the opposite sex.
No ordinance has been proposed that forces all businesses to have all-gender bathrooms. Plus, all-gender bathrooms, where they exist, are single occupant rooms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 06:40 AM
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
5,748 posts, read 4,196,483 times
Reputation: 3811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Third Strike View Post
Incorrect. A privately owned business can not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In 2012, sexual orientation and gender identity were also included under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, after a federal court ruling. This is the biggest reason why HB2 will be overturned once it reaches the higher courts.
Yes, they can refuse service, on the basis of:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 06:44 AM
 
398 posts, read 366,982 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy37 View Post
Yes, they can refuse service, on the basis of:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
Um, none of those meet the test of race, color, religion, and national origin. Thats the point several people have tried to make to you many times. I cannot fathom your inability to understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top