CaneInHeelCountry
Junior
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,870
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".
Yeah, great idea. Let's consider all gheys to be medically/psyciatrically disabled. No "unintended consequences" might arise from that.
OK, this is getting ridiculous...or rather, it's long past that point. I said I'd bow out before and came back like a dumbass, so I'll keep my word this time. Peace.
