North Carolina House Passes Bill Voiding All Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinances

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2016, 02:03 PM)Griever Wrote: North carolina just got outdone in the hate department

congrats Mississippi

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/30/3764798/mississippi-anti-lgbt-bill/

-_-

Does that link say thinkprogress in it?



TeeHee

[GMDino]

(03-31-2016, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does that link say thinkprogress in it?



TeeHee

Well, you read that much correctly.... 

How about the rest at the link?  The part that references the actual bill and story?

See sometimes there is another link there that can lead someone to another story from another site that is less disregarded by one side or the other.

And sometimes the website linked is just a front for white supremacy which will get laughed at.  

[Griever]

(03-31-2016, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does that link say thinkprogress in it?



TeeHee

because that somehow takes away from the wording of the actual bill

is this one better?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/31/mississippis-senate-just-approved-a-sweeping-religious-liberty-bill-that-critics-say-is-the-worst-yet-for-lgbt-rights/

or this one

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mississippi-senate-passes-sweeping-religious-liberty-bill-n548601

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2016, 04:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, you read that much correctly.... 

How about the rest at the link?  The part that references the actual bill and story?

See sometimes there is another link there that can lead someone to another story from another site that is less disregarded by one side or the other.

And sometimes the website linked is just a front for white supremacy which will get laughed at.  

(03-31-2016, 04:46 PM)Griever Wrote: because that somehow takes away from the wording of the actual bill

is this one better?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/31/mississippis-senate-just-approved-a-sweeping-religious-liberty-bill-that-critics-say-is-the-worst-yet-for-lgbt-rights/

or this one

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mississippi-senate-passes-sweeping-religious-liberty-bill-n548601

Sure you are both right. Just like the OP linked a measure that removed all anti-discrimination measures from LBGTs in NC.


Look over there: WOLF!!

[GMDino]

(03-31-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure you are both right. Just like the OP linked a measure that removed all anti-discrimination measures from LBGTs in NC.


Look over there: WOLF!!

Three bills in one week.  One vetoed.  One worse than the other.

But they don't affect you or me, so why should anyone care?

Oh...and the wolf eventually really did show up.  

[Griever]

(03-31-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure you are both right. Just like the OP linked a measure that removed all anti-discrimination measures from LBGTs in NC.


Look over there: WOLF!!

hey we get it, you don't care about people, and that is fine.

Some of us just want to see people treated equally in all facets of their lives, whether it affects us or not

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2016, 06:32 PM)Griever Wrote: hey we get it, you don't care about people, and that is fine.

Some of us just want to see people treated equally in all facets of their lives, whether it affects us or not

It's either that or I simply pointed to the known bias of the outlet that posted the article and then drew correlation to the OP that stated all rights have been voided in NC. Personally, similar to the OP if I care enough I will read the actual bill(s) and respond accordingly instead of just reacting to a biased media source. 


A quick glance seems to indicate this is just more of a religious freedoms bill that have been kicked around lately. 

[fredtoast]

(03-31-2016, 06:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A quick glance seems to indicate.  .  .  

Don't strain yourself with any real research.

Just ask the guys in the echo chamber what it means.

[GMDino]

(03-31-2016, 06:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's either that or I simply pointed to the known bias of the outlet that posted the article and then drew correlation to the OP that stated all rights have been voided in NC. Personally, similar to the OP if I care enough I will read the actual bill(s) and respond accordingly instead of just reacting to a biased media source. 


A quick glance seems to indicate this is just more of a religious freedoms bill that have been kicked around lately. 

That's a clever way of saying it...when it is really a way to allow anyone to discriminate as long as it comes from their "beliefs".

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2016, 11:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't strain yourself with any real research.

Just ask the guys in the echo chamber what it means.

You mean like the guy in post #5 that just started spouting off about the OP being exactly what the biased news site claimed it was instead of actually knowing WTF he was talking about?

I merely stated what it appeared to be at a quick glance. I did do any real research like that dude did. 

[Griever]

(03-31-2016, 11:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean like the guy in post #5 that just started spouting off about the OP being exactly what the biased news site claimed it was instead of actually knowing WTF he was talking about?

I merely stated what it appeared to be at a quick glance. I did do any real research like that dude did. 

then maybe if you want to comment on something you should actually read up on it, so you dont look like a moran

[GMDino]

(03-31-2016, 11:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean like the guy in post #5 that just started spouting off about the OP being exactly what the biased news site claimed it was instead of actually knowing WTF he was talking about?

I merely stated what it appeared to be at a quick glance. I did do any real research like that dude did. 

Since there was no question I guess this isn't answering a question with a questions...but what was wrong in post 5?

Fred quoted the story, which is a fairly accurate take on the bill that was disguised as a "safety" bill for people using public bathrooms.  And if you didn't do any research how can you say he was wrong?

Or was that just that snark that is so frowned upon?  

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2016, 08:53 AM)Griever Wrote: then maybe if you want to comment on something you should actually read up on it, so you dont look like a moran

Hell I agree and if you want to appear non-biased you may want to look for neutral sources.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2016, 09:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Since there was no question I guess this isn't answering a question with a questions...but what was wrong in post 5?

Fred quoted the story, which is a fairly accurate take on the bill that was disguised as a "safety" bill for people using public bathrooms.  And if you didn't do any research how can you say he was wrong?

Or was that just that snark that is so frowned upon?  

Yes, Fred quote the opinion from a biased news source after Sunset (a resident of NC) rightly said "This is the bathroom bill"; that's pretty much the point. thanks for pointing it out.

I see the snark comment has stuck with you. I'm pretty sure the thread in which I voiced my distain about the snark was one of 5 people being killed and folks using it as a punchline. I can find it if you like.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2016, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, Fred quote the opinion from a biased news source after Sunset (a resident of NC) rightly said "This is the bathroom bill"; that's pretty much the point. thanks for pointing it out.

I see the snark comment has stuck with you. I'm pretty sure the thread in which I voiced my distain about the snark was one of 5 people being killed and folks using it as a punchline. I can find it if you like.

Yes, but it is not a "bathroom bill" it is a bill to roll back all rules protecting those in the LGBTQ community...plus any attempt to raise minimum wage.  I guess that is to protect children in the bathroom too?

So Fred was quite accurate.  The NC legislature may call it the "Bumble Bee Bill" if they like but the bill says what it says.

All I know is someone who hates snark sure knows how to use it...beyond that I wouldn't waste my time.  

[McC]

(03-31-2016, 06:32 PM)Griever Wrote: hey we get it, you don't care about people, and that is fine.

Some of us just want to see people treated equally in all facets of their lives, whether it affects us or not

Don't fall off your pulpit or your ivory throne.  When people say crap like this, it makes me want to puke.  Empty words do that to me.  Give me ten sinners over one holier than thou any day.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2016, 04:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, but it is not a "bathroom bill" it is a bill to roll back all rules protecting those in the LGBTQ community...plus any attempt to raise minimum wage.  I guess that is to protect children in the bathroom too?

So Fred was quite accurate.  The NC legislature may call it the "Bumble Bee Bill" if they like but the bill says what it says.

The Bill is posted in post #12. You may suggest that it "repeals all non-discrimination right of LBGTs' if you want. And you can assert that Fred and the writer of the article are "Quite accurate". This doesn't mean that many that actually read and understand it will agree with you.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-29-2016, 03:21 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: they're dressing up centralized economic policy favoring the states largest lobbyists as good old-fashioned country-crock Christian family morals, with a side of sausage-gravy fear of rape.

if their main concern is using the potty, how did minimum wage laws sneak in there?  is there a different minimum wage for the transgender community?

Didn't think anyone who supports these 'religious freedom' bills or equates this to bathroom rights wanted to take this question on.  

[GMDino]

(04-01-2016, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Bill is posted in post #12. You may suggest that it "repeals all non-discrimination right of LBGTs' if you want. And you can assert that Fred and the writer of the article are "Quite accurate". This doesn't mean that many that actually read and understand it will agree with you.

Quote:PART I. SINGLE-SEX MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY BATHROOM AND CHANGING 24 FACILITIES 25 SECTION 1.1. G.S. 115C-47 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: 26 "(63) To Establish Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing 27 Facilities. – Local boards of education shall establish single-sex multiple 28 occupancy bathroom and changing facilities as provided in G.S. 115C-521.2." 29 SECTION 1.2. Article 37 of Chapter 115C of the General Statutes is amended by 30 adding a new section to read: 31 "§ 115C-521.2. Single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities. 32 (a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section: 33 (1) Biological sex. – The physical condition of being male or female, which is 34 stated on a person's birth certificate

There is the actual "bathroom" part of the bill.

It actually defines who can use what restroom and when.

All based on "biological sex".

Quote:Accommodations Permitted. – Nothing in this section shall prohibit public agencies 13 from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing facilities upon a 14 person's request due to special circumstances, but in no event shall that accommodation result in 15 the public agency allowing a person to use a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility 16 designated under subsection (b) of this section for a sex other than the person's biological sex. 

This is specifically to keep anyone from using a bathroom if they have different parts based on their birth certificate...not what they have now.  Not how they look...but what did the doctor see on day one.  Along with the note that no one can accommodate anyone else.

If that is not rolling back any protection perhaps they should have worded it clearer.

The second section is to make sure no cities try to raise minimum wage because...bathrooms?

Part III is a winner too!

Quote:The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in 32 employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other 33 applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, 34 resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political 35 subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to 36 the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to 37 personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law." 

Remember when Lucy would say that if you don't like the way you are treated you should just move?  Well NC just said you have to move out of the state because no city or town or hamlet will be passing any regulations to help or protect you from being discriminated against while the state can make laws to override them.

Get it?

But, again, it doesn't effect you so you don't care.  And I have no problem with that.  Just stop pretending it isn't what it is just to argue.

[Belsnickel]

Honestly, it's amazing to me how much more attention the NC bill is getting over the MS bill around here.