NC are threatening to yank UNC and NC State out of ACC

[Salt]

I think you're kinda shifting the blame here. I also think you probably need to read more about the ordinance for yourself.

IMO, the issue lies not with the Charlotte folks for providing the same level of protections and rights to LGBT people as had previously been provided by 225 cities and 17 states. Rather, the issue is with the R legislators in NC thorough misunderstanding of what Trans means, and their bigoted assumption that it means there'll be a flood of straight dudes lining up to gangbang their wives and daughters in public restrooms.

It is unfortunate that the R legislature was able to parlay the bathroom portion of the bill into a massive PR campaign. But that was by design. By doing so, they created needless controversy and they were able to mask the fact that that their bill took away key non-discrimination rights from lgbt people and disallowed cities in NC from governing themselves on a couple different fronts. Which is what got this whole ball rolling in the first place, and why the feds, the NCAA/ACC, and various corporations got involved.

I think that is a legitimate question that needs to be further clarified since it is a public ordinance that impacts more than one group of people. What meaning of "trans" is it since you may have trans- gender, trans- sexual , and transvestites? Does it mean all of these groups? Seems to me the ordinance without further clarity opens the door way too far for the potential abuses and nonsense that may ensue.

That's fine. The R legislature could surely have asked for clarification and I'm sure they'd have received it. The Charlotte ordinance had been thoroughly debated at the city level, over the course of several open forums. However, that's not the way it went down at the state level. The legislators called an emergency session to immediately overturn the Charlotte ordinance, and also to punish Charlotte and other cities.

I don't think the legislature was satisfied with the open ended definition of "trans" which would have led to all sorts of unintended consequences and bizarre situations.


The HB2 law necessitated a narrower definition of trans to only include those individuals that have gone the route of legally changing their *** id on their birth certificate and gone through reassignment surgery. That makes it pretty clear to me what trans means for the purpose of making and enforcing public law.

We're going round and round now, so I'll make this my last post. Bottom line is that any bathroom legislation that restricts the rights of trans people is unenforceable and unnecessary. It preys on ignorance and fear.

Allowing trans people--whether they have fully transitioned or are in the process thereof--to use the bathroom of their choice does not lead to "all sorts of unintended consequences and bizarre situations". This is evidenced by the fact that so many cities and states have laws on the books that extend this right to trans people and have never had a problem.

The unintended consequences may or may not happen. I don't know of any evidence to suggest it would happen; but then again I see no evidence why an ordinance like this needed to be enacted in the first place. Any cases you are aware of in NC that were egregious discriminations against LBGT individuals necessitating such an ordinance? I have been trying to find it.

 

[Salt]

All right, so HB 2 gets repealed and you now have a replacement bill HB 142 that removes the bathroom restrictions language of the former and returns to the status quo before the whole mess started. If you are transgendered and want to use your identified ***'s bathroom, have at it.

Majority of states (31) have similar positions not singling out LBGT individuals as a specially protected class as under ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

LBGT activists still have an issue. Why? Because they want to be protected under Title VII. Like I said, this has a larger national agenda and political motivation.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

All right, so HB 2 gets repealed and you now have a replacement bill HB 142 that removes the bathroom restrictions language of the former and returns to the status quo before the whole mess started. If you are transgendered and want to use your identified ***'s bathroom, have at it.

Majority of states (31) have similar positions not singling out LBGT individuals as a specially protected class as under ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

LBGT activists still have an issue. Why? Because they want to be protected under Title VII. Like I said, this has a larger national agenda and political motivation.

And your point is?

As I noted in my initial post on the subject, the Charlotte ordinance that started this whole thing in motion was obviously about more than just bathrooms. It was about extending anti-discrim protections to lgbt people. The bathroom thing was just one small part of those protections. And again, there are 225 cities that have similar ordinances; Charlotte was the largest city in the US not to have such protections in place.

The state then put the stranglehold on that by focusing national attention on the bathroom issue and making HB2, which disallowed any anti-discrim protections for lgbt people.

While the replacement bill "puts things as they were before" with regard to bathrooms, it does nothing to extend the anti-discrim protections to lgbt people, and in fact disallows cities from making ordinances that would allow those protections for the next few years.

So yeah, obviously LGBT activists still have an issue, as well they should. And obviously many corporations and agencies are going to continue to boycott the state for continuing to allow discrimination against lgbt people. Which is why the state legislature is trying to put the squeeze to the ACC by threatening to pull state universities from the conference if they pull more championship games from the state.

 

[Salt]

My point is that the ordinance extending these protections are not based on actual instances of **** or trans being denied access to services, bathrooms, employment, etc. just as has existed prior to its enactment. I have found nothing that would have incited the need for such an ordinance.

This is just for political propaganda. They want to compare their situation to blacks in the early 60s being denied service at restaurants, sitting in the back of buses. or having their own water fountains. And we all know their situation is nothing like that.

So what really is their agenda?

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Why were bathrooms separated by gender in the fist place?

Good question. I just looked it up...first happened in the 1700s in England, Here's an article about it:

The Weird History of Gender-Segregated Bathrooms

So in other words...we actually are better off going with the Roman version?

 

[sabrose]

This law was about men using the ladies room. It was rational and biologically correct. Trump rescinded Obama's silly order last week.When deviancy becomes normalized the society becomes deviant. Its good not to discriminate but sometimes sanity has to win over insanity.

 

[wushah]

Lol. Call their bluff. ACC should have announced that they're boycotting NC again the same day.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

My point is that the ordinance extending these protections are not based on actual instances of **** or trans being denied access to services, bathrooms, employment, etc. just as has existed prior to its enactment. I have found nothing that would have incited the need for such an ordinance.

This is just for political propaganda. They want to compare their situation to blacks in the early 60s being denied service at restaurants, sitting in the back of buses. or having their own water fountains. And we all know their situation is nothing like that.

So what really is their agenda?

I think your line of reasoning is a bit off, as is your conclusion.

First off, here's a link to a brief of a study conducted by folks at the UCLA School of Law. Among the findings are that:

--Several recent instances of employment discrimination against LGBT people in North Carolina have been documented in the media, court cases and reports to legal organizations; these include reports from a several public school teachers and a law enforcement officer.

--In response to a recent national survey of transgender people, 77% of respondents from North Carolina reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work.


There's a link to the full report if you'd like to give it a look. While the report argues for a statewide law offering non-discrim protections to LGBT people, that ain't gonna happen any time soon, so the next best thing is ordinances at the city level. Which is where Charlotte came into play.

Point is, a significant number of cases of discrimination and harassment against LGBT people have happened in NC. The Charlotte ordinance wasn't just a political maneuver. Their agenda was to provide protections for LGBT people that don't currently exist at the state level.

 

[RichtsaCane]

You are leaving out God. In the beginning, H e made them male and female as He says in the Bible. He condemns homosexuality....See Sodom and Gom. and the 10 commandments which are at the Supreme Court and the foundation of our laws.....God's Word trumps(no pun intended) everyone's opinion.

 

[vivijane]

Good. That's like a girl with a pvssy that smells like a dumpster threatening to not let you lick it. Fvck them. If their cvnty state doesn't get everything they want then they're going to take their ****** smelling pvssies and not let us lick them.

ROLMFAO......

 

[loreste]

In one hand they are saying same folks are saying "get government out of my personal life while saying government needs to regulate the homos and abortion" Be consistent.

 

[1CN]

You are leaving out God. In the beginning, H e made them male and female as He says in the Bible. He condemns homosexuality....See Sodom and Gom. and the 10 commandments which are at the Supreme Court and the foundation of our laws.....God's Word trumps(no pun intended) everyone's opinion.

thank you for reminding me to read this story for myself....your wrong by the way

 

[Salt]

My point is that the ordinance extending these protections are not based on actual instances of **** or trans being denied access to services, bathrooms, employment, etc. just as has existed prior to its enactment. I have found nothing that would have incited the need for such an ordinance.

This is just for political propaganda. They want to compare their situation to blacks in the early 60s being denied service at restaurants, sitting in the back of buses. or having their own water fountains. And we all know their situation is nothing like that.

So what really is their agenda?

I think your line of reasoning is a bit off, as is your conclusion.

First off, here's a link to a brief of a study conducted by folks at the UCLA School of Law. Among the findings are that:

--Several recent instances of employment discrimination against LGBT people in North Carolina have been documented in the media, court cases and reports to legal organizations; these include reports from a several public school teachers and a law enforcement officer.

--In response to a recent national survey of transgender people, 77% of respondents from North Carolina reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work.


There's a link to the full report if you'd like to give it a look. While the report argues for a statewide law offering non-discrim protections to LGBT people, that ain't gonna happen any time soon, so the next best thing is ordinances at the city level. Which is where Charlotte came into play.

Point is, a significant number of cases of discrimination and harassment against LGBT people have happened in NC. The Charlotte ordinance wasn't just a political maneuver. Their agenda was to provide protections for LGBT people that don't currently exist at the state level.

I will actually take some time to read the report. Thanks for the link.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

My point is that the ordinance extending these protections are not based on actual instances of **** or trans being denied access to services, bathrooms, employment, etc. just as has existed prior to its enactment. I have found nothing that would have incited the need for such an ordinance.

This is just for political propaganda. They want to compare their situation to blacks in the early 60s being denied service at restaurants, sitting in the back of buses. or having their own water fountains. And we all know their situation is nothing like that.

So what really is their agenda?

I think your line of reasoning is a bit off, as is your conclusion.

First off, here's a link to a brief of a study conducted by folks at the UCLA School of Law. Among the findings are that:

--Several recent instances of employment discrimination against LGBT people in North Carolina have been documented in the media, court cases and reports to legal organizations; these include reports from a several public school teachers and a law enforcement officer.

--In response to a recent national survey of transgender people, 77% of respondents from North Carolina reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work.


There's a link to the full report if you'd like to give it a look. While the report argues for a statewide law offering non-discrim protections to LGBT people, that ain't gonna happen any time soon, so the next best thing is ordinances at the city level. Which is where Charlotte came into play.

Point is, a significant number of cases of discrimination and harassment against LGBT people have happened in NC. The Charlotte ordinance wasn't just a political maneuver. Their agenda was to provide protections for LGBT people that don't currently exist at the state level.

I will actually take some time to read the report. Thanks for the link.

To be fair, the report focuses mostly on employment discrimination, and the Charlotte ordinance went beyond that, to ensure that businesses (bars, restaurants, shops) cannot discriminate against lbgt folks by denying them service. But the point stands that obviously there were instances of discrim and harassment against LGBT people within the state, and that the Charlotte ordinance sought to address those concerns.

 

[Salt]

My point is that the ordinance extending these protections are not based on actual instances of **** or trans being denied access to services, bathrooms, employment, etc. just as has existed prior to its enactment. I have found nothing that would have incited the need for such an ordinance.

This is just for political propaganda. They want to compare their situation to blacks in the early 60s being denied service at restaurants, sitting in the back of buses. or having their own water fountains. And we all know their situation is nothing like that.

So what really is their agenda?

I think your line of reasoning is a bit off, as is your conclusion.

First off, here's a link to a brief of a study conducted by folks at the UCLA School of Law. Among the findings are that:

--Several recent instances of employment discrimination against LGBT people in North Carolina have been documented in the media, court cases and reports to legal organizations; these include reports from a several public school teachers and a law enforcement officer.

--In response to a recent national survey of transgender people, 77% of respondents from North Carolina reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work.


There's a link to the full report if you'd like to give it a look. While the report argues for a statewide law offering non-discrim protections to LGBT people, that ain't gonna happen any time soon, so the next best thing is ordinances at the city level. Which is where Charlotte came into play.

Point is, a significant number of cases of discrimination and harassment against LGBT people have happened in NC. The Charlotte ordinance wasn't just a political maneuver. Their agenda was to provide protections for LGBT people that don't currently exist at the state level.

I will actually take some time to read the report. Thanks for the link.

Ok, I read most of it. To be honest I found it totally underwhelming. Most of the data seems to be based on surveys which are basically self-reports. In other words, based on one side's perspective of the situation. It really is hard to make definitive/objective conclusions based on subjective data. All that can really be said is that LBGT individuals "feel" they are being discriminated against. Doesn't mean in actuality they really are, or if they are, whether the perceived/alleged unfair treatment is actually due to their gender identity preference.

I did try to look for legal cases which typically involve much more scrutiny and investigation to get to the truth of the matter.

Only 3 instances of alleged discrimination I read involved actual court cases. All 3 were inconclusive. One voluntarily dismissed her suit. The other concludes with no further information available as to its resolution. The other case is "still pending".

Again, I was looking for some weighty evidence and found basically heresay.

To compare the paltry evidences of LBGT discrimination mentioned in this particular study with the mountains of documentary evidence of racial abuses in the Civil Rights era that led to a change in law and draw some parallel between the two situations is an extreme stretch in my opinion.

 

[Chuckles]

The farce is strong within this thread. Some of you "guys" (is it PC to say that) all sound like you're a twenty-something kid writing to score points with some useless professor in some useless social justice class, but again this used to be a board to learn about and discuss the Miami Hurricanes football team.

Mod's need to decide if they're into this to promote this and that activism or to talk football. But before some poofter has to comment on that it's true no one if forcing me to read it. That's easy enough to do, I know the long-time posters and mods that actually have something football relevant to say.

Others are free to whine because their boyfriend partner or whatever is confused and they want to make the world a friendlier place for it. It's a shame y'all don't have your own forum for that--free of the rest of us who are unburdened with those concerns.

So will N'Kosi Perry become the QB starter in the fall? Don't know. Would be great if he can. I think it's unlikely.

Plenty of other football threads talking about that. But in truth N'Kosi has nothing to do with this topic. You are certainly free to chime in those other threads if you don't care about this one.

Yeah, and social activism has nothing to do with the topic of this board: football.

 

[NoVaCane04]

But what about duke and wake? They can stay, right?

Whew, that was a close one...

State has no control over private universities, which they are.

He was kidding, **** stick

 

[Salt]

The farce is strong within this thread. Some of you "guys" (is it PC to say that) all sound like you're a twenty-something kid writing to score points with some useless professor in some useless social justice class, but again this used to be a board to learn about and discuss the Miami Hurricanes football team.

Mod's need to decide if they're into this to promote this and that activism or to talk football. But before some poofter has to comment on that it's true no one if forcing me to read it. That's easy enough to do, I know the long-time posters and mods that actually have something football relevant to say.

Others are free to whine because their boyfriend partner or whatever is confused and they want to make the world a friendlier place for it. It's a shame y'all don't have your own forum for that--free of the rest of us who are unburdened with those concerns.

So will N'Kosi Perry become the QB starter in the fall? Don't know. Would be great if he can. I think it's unlikely.

Plenty of other football threads talking about that. But in truth N'Kosi has nothing to do with this topic. You are certainly free to chime in those other threads if you don't care about this one.

Yeah, and social activism has nothing to do with the topic of this board: football.

You are free to respond..........or not. Still I'm sure you can find plenty of N'Kosi threads to focus on.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

My point is that the ordinance extending these protections are not based on actual instances of **** or trans being denied access to services, bathrooms, employment, etc. just as has existed prior to its enactment. I have found nothing that would have incited the need for such an ordinance.

This is just for political propaganda. They want to compare their situation to blacks in the early 60s being denied service at restaurants, sitting in the back of buses. or having their own water fountains. And we all know their situation is nothing like that.

So what really is their agenda?

I think your line of reasoning is a bit off, as is your conclusion.

First off, here's a link to a brief of a study conducted by folks at the UCLA School of Law. Among the findings are that:

--Several recent instances of employment discrimination against LGBT people in North Carolina have been documented in the media, court cases and reports to legal organizations; these include reports from a several public school teachers and a law enforcement officer.

--In response to a recent national survey of transgender people, 77% of respondents from North Carolina reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work.


There's a link to the full report if you'd like to give it a look. While the report argues for a statewide law offering non-discrim protections to LGBT people, that ain't gonna happen any time soon, so the next best thing is ordinances at the city level. Which is where Charlotte came into play.

Point is, a significant number of cases of discrimination and harassment against LGBT people have happened in NC. The Charlotte ordinance wasn't just a political maneuver. Their agenda was to provide protections for LGBT people that don't currently exist at the state level.

I will actually take some time to read the report. Thanks for the link.

Ok, I read most of it. To be honest I found it totally underwhelming. Most of the data seems to be based on surveys which are basically self-reports. In other words, based on one side's perspective of the situation. It really is hard to make definitive/objective conclusions based on subjective data. All that can really be said is that LBGT individuals "feel" they are being discriminated against. Doesn't mean in actuality they really are, or if they are, whether the perceived/alleged unfair treatment is actually due to their gender identity preference.

I did try to look for legal cases which typically involve much more scrutiny and investigation to get to the truth of the matter.

Only 3 instances of alleged discrimination I read involved actual court cases. All 3 were inconclusive. One voluntarily dismissed her suit. The other concludes with no further information available as to its resolution. The other case is "still pending".

Again, I was looking for some weighty evidence and found basically heresay.

To compare the paltry evidences of LBGT discrimination mentioned in this particular study with the mountains of documentary evidence of racial abuses in the Civil Rights era that led to a change in law and draw some parallel between the two situations is an extreme stretch in my opinion.

Can't say I'm shocked that you'd find pretty much anything in this regard to be "underwhelming" lol...you'd clearly made up your mind, even before you knew anything about what the original HB2 legislation said, what the Charlotte ordinance said, the legal precedence behind the Charlotte ordinance, etc, etc. And there ain't **** that's gonna change your mind now.

FWIW, you won't find a lot of court cases in NC regarding employment discrim against LGBT people specifically BECAUSE there is no standing for LGBT people to bring such cases. In other words, the state court system does not recognize discrim against LGBT people as a thing, therefore LGBT people have no recourse in the courts. The few court cases cited in the UCLA report were folks who were trying to blaze a trail, which takes money and time that a lot of folks don't have. The UCLA report suggests that if LGBT people actually had the standing to sue in such cases, the state would see about 50 cases per year.

 

[Salt]

My point is that the ordinance extending these protections are not based on actual instances of **** or trans being denied access to services, bathrooms, employment, etc. just as has existed prior to its enactment. I have found nothing that would have incited the need for such an ordinance.

This is just for political propaganda. They want to compare their situation to blacks in the early 60s being denied service at restaurants, sitting in the back of buses. or having their own water fountains. And we all know their situation is nothing like that.

So what really is their agenda?

I think your line of reasoning is a bit off, as is your conclusion.

First off, here's a link to a brief of a study conducted by folks at the UCLA School of Law. Among the findings are that:

--Several recent instances of employment discrimination against LGBT people in North Carolina have been documented in the media, court cases and reports to legal organizations; these include reports from a several public school teachers and a law enforcement officer.

--In response to a recent national survey of transgender people, 77% of respondents from North Carolina reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work.


There's a link to the full report if you'd like to give it a look. While the report argues for a statewide law offering non-discrim protections to LGBT people, that ain't gonna happen any time soon, so the next best thing is ordinances at the city level. Which is where Charlotte came into play.

Point is, a significant number of cases of discrimination and harassment against LGBT people have happened in NC. The Charlotte ordinance wasn't just a political maneuver. Their agenda was to provide protections for LGBT people that don't currently exist at the state level.

I will actually take some time to read the report. Thanks for the link.

Ok, I read most of it. To be honest I found it totally underwhelming. Most of the data seems to be based on surveys which are basically self-reports. In other words, based on one side's perspective of the situation. It really is hard to make definitive/objective conclusions based on subjective data. All that can really be said is that LBGT individuals "feel" they are being discriminated against. Doesn't mean in actuality they really are, or if they are, whether the perceived/alleged unfair treatment is actually due to their gender identity preference.

I did try to look for legal cases which typically involve much more scrutiny and investigation to get to the truth of the matter.

Only 3 instances of alleged discrimination I read involved actual court cases. All 3 were inconclusive. One voluntarily dismissed her suit. The other concludes with no further information available as to its resolution. The other case is "still pending".

Again, I was looking for some weighty evidence and found basically heresay.

To compare the paltry evidences of LBGT discrimination mentioned in this particular study with the mountains of documentary evidence of racial abuses in the Civil Rights era that led to a change in law and draw some parallel between the two situations is an extreme stretch in my opinion.

Can't say I'm shocked that you'd find pretty much anything in this regard to be "underwhelming" lol...you'd clearly made up your mind, even before you knew anything about what the original HB2 legislation said, what the Charlotte ordinance said, the legal precedence behind the Charlotte ordinance, etc, etc. And there ain't **** that's gonna change your mind now.

FWIW, you won't find a lot of court cases in NC regarding employment discrim against LGBT people specifically BECAUSE there is no standing for LGBT people to bring such cases. In other words, the state court system does not recognize discrim against LGBT people as a thing, therefore LGBT people have no recourse in the courts. The few court cases cited in the UCLA report were folks who were trying to blaze a trail, which takes money and time that a lot of folks don't have. The UCLA report suggests that if LGBT people actually had the standing to sue in such cases, the state would see about 50 cases per year.

right... which goes back full circle why LBGT people should be considered a special class under Title VII to begin with? They obviously want their alleged discrimination grievances to be included under the Civil Rights Act when their situation has no comparison whatsoever to what blacks went through.

Like I said, they would be better off, in my opinion, legally fighting under ADA but very few want to consider their condition as a medical/psychiatric "disability".