North Carolina House Passes Bill Voiding All Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinances

[SunsetBengal]

(03-31-2016, 11:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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".

Well, 88.4% of North Carolinians identify themselves as some form of Christian.  Source: Gallup

As I stated earlier, why should 99.7% of the general population have to be forced into accommodating 0.3% that have an identity crisis?

[Vas Deferens]

(04-01-2016, 05:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, 88.4% of North Carolinians identify themselves as some form of Christian.  Source: Gallup

As I stated earlier, why should 99.7% of the general population have to be forced into accommodating 0.3% that have an identity crisis?

Why was a minimum wage stipulation inserted into a bill apparently meant to appease 'christian values'?  Are christians against local municipalities dictating their own minimum wage laws?

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2016, 05:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, it's amazing to me how much more attention the NC bill is getting over the MS bill around here.

It is because the NC measure voided every LBGT anti-discrimination law ever. Not sure anything could be bigger than that.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-01-2016, 05:56 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Why was a minimum wage stipulation inserted into a bill apparently meant to appease 'christian values'?  Are christians against local municipalities dictating their own minimum wage laws?

Because the North Carolina legislature also cares about mom and pop businesses that cannot afford to pay employees an exaggerated minimum wage.  This bill also offers protections to the LGBT community that are above and beyond what is Federally mandated for a State to provide.  Basically, the State is asserting it's position on a few issues that reflect the collective wishes of the citizens of North Carolina.  Charlotte's city council is made up of a little group of Liberal activists, that had no business attempting to undermine State policy. 

[Vas Deferens]

(04-01-2016, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because the North Carolina legislature also cares about mom and pop businesses that cannot afford to pay employees an exaggerated minimum wage.  This bill also offers protections to the LGBT community that are above and beyond what is Federally mandated for a State to provide.  Basically, the State is asserting it's position on a few issues that reflect the collective wishes of the citizens of North Carolina.  Charlotte's city council is made up of a little group of Liberal activists, that had no business attempting to undermine State policy. 

I'm sure it was the "mom and pop" lobbyists that pushed them to slyly insert minimum wage language the bill too.  Come on man, you know better than that.  

[SunsetBengal]

(04-01-2016, 07:10 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I'm sure it was the "mom and pop" lobbyists that pushed them to slyly insert minimum wage language the bill too.  Come on man, you know better than that.  

Unless you're in a small town, in a really rural area, it really is hard to find a job that pays the actual "minimum" wage.  Heck, I live in a small town, 15 minutes from Raleigh, and from what I understand, even the fast food joints here start a little above minimum.  However, forcing a mandatory high number for minimal skill work, like $15/hr. is just too much for many of the locally owned businesses to withstand.  Have you spent any actual time in NC?  Most every town that I encounter has a revitalized and thriving "downtown" district, that is packed with eateries and little niche businesses.  Would be a horrible thing for those type of places to have to close shop, and all of those jobs be done away with.

[Rotobeast]

(04-01-2016, 04:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: All I know is someone who hates snark sure knows how to use it...beyond that I wouldn't waste my time.  

[*bfine32*]

It appears private business is getting involved.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dc-mayor-bans-city-workers-travel-north-carolina-152304877.html

I assume most are OK with businesses runing politics.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2016, 05:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, 88.4% of North Carolinians identify themselves as some form of Christian.  Source: Gallup

As I stated earlier, why should 99.7% of the general population have to be forced into accommodating 0.3% that have an identity crisis?

NC is also 70% white....why should less than a third be allowed to have jobs were the majority of people are white?  why can't I fire someone for being a minority if it goes against my belief that white folks are harder workers?  I mean we are in the majority so what we say goes.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2016, 05:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, it's amazing to me how much more attention the NC bill is getting over the MS bill around here.

Because some folks think this is just a simple "bathroom bill" that them libruls and girl-girl types are getting all upset about.

The MS bill is much worse...I don't think those who are for such bills can deny what it does as much they can try with this on in NC.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2016, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because some folks think this is just a simple "bathroom bill" that them libruls and girl-girl types are getting all upset about.

So the NC bill is getting more play because folks think it's simple bill?

Didn't really think that one through did ya?


But to answer the question: it's because nobody OUT SIDE OF Mississippi gives a damn about Mississippi. (Sorta like African Muslims)

[GMDino]

(04-02-2016, 12:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the NC bill is getting more play because folks think it's simple bill?

Didn't really think that one through did ya?


But to answer the question: it's because nobody OUT SIDE OF Mississippi gives a damn about Mississippi. (Sorta like African Muslims)

No...some are trying to downplay the bill rather see what it really is because they don't want it to be what it really is.

Didn't really read what I wrote did ya?


However your last line reinforces what I have said in this thread that if it doesn't affect "you"* then "you"* don't have to care.  While some of us care about everyone.




















*"universal" you....not "you" specifically.

[Griever]

(04-01-2016, 04:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell I agree and if you want to appear non-biased you may want to look for neutral sources.

so you're basically saying that the "biased" that are showing the bill and excerpts from it, are skewing it, right?

-hands tin foil over-

[Griever]

(04-01-2016, 05:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, it's amazing to me how much more attention the NC bill is getting over the MS bill around here.

i posted the mississippi trip back on page 3, post 57

[GMDino]

(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/

-_-

Mississippi in a nutshell.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/04/03/mississippi-interracial-couple-evicted-over-race/82584514/

Quote:Miss. interracial couple evicted from RV park



TUPELO, Miss. — A Mississippi RV park owner admits evicting an interracial couple in late February because of the color of the husband's skin.


“Me and my husband, not ever in 10 years have we experienced any problem,” said Erica Flores Dunahoo, who is Hispanic and Native American and whose husband, a National Guardsman, is African-American. “Nobody’s given us dirty looks. This is our first time.”


More than a half-century after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred discrimination on the basis of race, Gene Baker acknowledged asking the interracial couple to leave his RV park in Tupelo.


Baker, who lives in Aberdeen, said Thursday he only did it because “the neighbors were giving me such a problem.”


The NAACP is investigating.

“Racial discrimination should be a thing of the past in Mississippi, considering our long history,” said Derrick Johnson, president of the Mississippi NAACP.


But with some state leaders expressing intolerance, “we can do no more than expect incidents like this to exist in the state of Mississippi,” he said.


Marriages between whites and blacks remained illegal in Mississippi and other states until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Loving v. Virginia decision, tossed out laws that barred interracial marriage. A year later, the Fair Housing Act made it illegal to refuse to rent to people on the basis of their "race, color, religion, sex or national origin."


In the decades since, cultural barriers have begun to fade. In 2011, The New York Times featured Mississippi as having one of the nation’s fastest growing multiracial populations — up 70 percent between 2000 and 2010.


In February, Dunahoo, 40, and her 37-year-old husband, Stanley Hoskins, who have two children, were looking to rent an RV space when she contacted Baker. “We were trying to save money to get our life on track,” she said.

Mississippi National Guard Sgt. Stanley Hoskins hugs his daughter, Isabella, goodbye before returning to Afghanistan in 2012. (Photo: Special to The Clarion-Ledger)

On Feb. 28, she arrived at the RV park and gave Baker a $275 check for rent for the month.



“He was real nice,” she said. “He invited me to church and gave me a hug. I bragged on him to my family.”



The next day, she said, Baker telephoned her and said, “Hey, you didn’t tell me you was married to no black man.”



She said she replied that she didn’t realize it was a problem.



“Oh, it’s a big problem with the members of my church, my community and my mother-in-law,” she quoted him as saying. “They don’t allow that black and white shacking.”



“We’re not shacking. We’re married,” she replied.



“Oh, it’s the same thing,” she quoted him as replying.

She said he told her, “You don’t talk like you wouldn’t be with no black man. If you would had come across like you were with a black man, we wouldn’t have this problem right now.”


She said she replied, “My husband ain’t no thug. He’s a good man. My husband has served his country for 13 years. He’s a sergeant in the National Guard.”


Hoskins called the situation “ludicrous.”


He and Dunahoo, who retained her last name after marriage, went to talk to Baker again.


Dunahoo said she had “prayed and prayed” for Baker to change his mind.


He didn’t.


Baker returned the $275 the couple paid, and they are relocating to another RV park where the rent is higher — $325 a month.


Dunahoo said she reported the matter to the NAACP because she believes Baker should not be allowed to turn away interracial couples. “I just want it to be where everybody is treating everybody equally."


Asked if he had a problem with a mixed-race couple, Baker replied Thursday, “Oh, no.”



He said his church lets interracial couples attend.



Dunahoo said he told her they could attend their church but “we’re not allowed to be members.”



Baker explained that if neighbors have a problem, “the best thing you can do is what the neighbors want to do.”



Asked if he would rent the RV space if another interracial couple showed up, he replied, “I’m closing it down, and that solves the problem.”

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2016, 10:46 AM)Griever Wrote: i posted the mississippi trip back on page 3, post 57

I know, and it was promptly ignored.

[Griever]

(04-04-2016, 12:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know, and it was promptly ignored.

sadly yeah, especially when the mississippi one makes the NC one look like childsplay

but it will be interesting to see how NC acts when they lose their billions of federal funding

[*bfine32*]

Wanted to bump this one because the Prison thread had morphed into a bathroom thread.

As I have said in both: If you look like a dude go in the dude's facility, handle your business in private, and leave; everyone is comfortable. Why do we need a law authorizing this? Showers are a whole new ball game (pun intended)

For those that are in favor of such a law, would you be in favor if the law included the stipulation that you cannot expose your privates in the common area of the latrine?

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2016, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Wanted to bump this one because the Prison thread had morphed into a bathroom thread.

As I have said in both: If you look like a dude go in the dude's facility, handle your business in private, and leave; everyone is comfortable. Why do we need a law authorizing this? Showers are a whole new ball game (pun intended)

For those that are in favor of such a law, would you be in favor if the law included the stipulation that you cannot expose your privates in the common area of the latrine?

Not even joking, I totally posted my last post in the prison thread thinking it was this one.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 03:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not even joking, I totally posted my last post in the prison thread thinking it was this one.

You know me: always trying to get us back on task