Jump to content

NC Civil Rights

southslider

By southslider
in Charlotte Coffee House

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
RaleighHeelsfan Hamlet

RaleighHeelsfan

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, grodney said:

Here's a good summary:

"

In the 1970s, North Carolina passed a law protecting its citizens from workplace discrimination. Due to the way it was written, that law had very little actual effect because it did not provide for a means to take discrimination issues to court. It was largely symbolic. In the 1980s, that law gained teeth and wrongfully terminated employees could turn to North Carolina courts to be made whole for termination decisions made on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, disability, and age. In other words, discriminatory employers could be held accountable. The State made clear that its public policy was to protect against workplace discrimination. Indeed, countless North Carolinians have used this as a means to protect themselves from these specific forms of discrimination.

That all went out the door on Wednesday. Buried deep in the much-discussed and debated HB2 is this seemingly innocuous language:

“This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein.”

Eliminating “civil actions” simply means “cannot sue” and not being able to sue, or go to court, puts workers right back where they were in the 1970s. That is, for the first time in decades, North Carolina courts closed their doors to those fired because of their race, sex, age, disability, national origin, or religion. Those wrongfully terminated are left with only federal discrimination laws, which are largely inferior to the now defunct state discrimination claims. North Carolina joins Mississippi as the only two states that do not offer their citizens state law protection against the most basic forms of discrimination. 

"

(From: https://www.charlotteagenda.com/44497/a-lawyers-perspective-on-why-hb2-is-a-plague-infested-rat/)

I have kids.  Girls, in fact.  And I have no problem with Charlotte's ordinance.  In fact I strongly support it, and strongly oppose HB2.

And further, per the paranoia supporting this bill, the guy below (who has lady "parts") will be forced to use the same accommodations as my wife, my girls, McCrory's wife, etc.

michaelopen-6ce7f93f442d94a2f7e0f827caf4

Similarly, transgenders who identify as females, and look to you like any ordinary female but might have "male parts" and might not have changed her birth certificate, will be forced to use the men's room, where she would be subject to god knows what kind of treatment.

If you're somehow "afraid" of a perv dude dressing up like a lady and going into the women's room, ANY AND ALL PERVS CAN ALREADY DO THAT TODAY, with whatever ordinances and laws are or aren't in effect.  There's NOTHING stopping them either way.

 

Why does she have a beard??? Why would anyone feel comfortable walking into a womans restroom with a beard? I know it should not matter. But that will confuse a lot of people!!

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Piedmont767 said:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf

 

Thank you Piedmont!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RaleighHeelsfan Hamlet

RaleighHeelsfan

Posted
Posted

Ok, I read this bill...reads like a big circle of nothing.

What lines do you guys think says you can only sue on the federal level? Is it page 4, lines 46-51? I don't understand legal terms very well. I sounds like you can still go to your HR department...but past that I don't understand.

I asking because a republican is claiming they can't find it in the bill. (I am neither republican or democrat)

I easily see the section on minimum wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grodney Town

grodney

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

 

Why does she have a beard??? Why would anyone feel comfortable walking into a womans restroom with a beard? I know it should not matter. But that will confuse a lot of people1

 

HE has a beard, I assume, because he's going through gender reassignment.

He wouldn't feel comfortable going into a women's room.....that's the whole point....the law forces him to.  With the Charlotte ordinance, he was free to use the restroom of the gender he identifies with.....which is obviously male.  But the legislature and McCrory screwed that up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kermit Metropolitan Area

kermit

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

Wait wait...I am confused.

She is biologically a woman though right? She has a vagina. She wants to be a man. Right? All HE has to do is go to the mans bathroom anyway. With the beard, nobody will know. With the beard in the women's bathroom, HE is sure to eventually get his tail kicked!!

Now you got it. HB2 requires him to go to the women's room.

Welcome to the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deleted. Hamlet

Deleted.

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

Wait wait...I am confused.

She is biologically a woman though right? She has a vagina. She wants to be a man. Right? All HE has to do is go to the mans bathroom anyway. With the beard, nobody will know. With the beard in the women's bathroom, HE is sure to eventually get his tail kicked!!

You just summed up why House Bill 2 is stupid and should be repealed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grodney Town

grodney

Posted
Posted

Yes, the restroom part of the bill is dumb, the allowing businesses to discriminate part of the bill is dumb, and the no local minimum wage part of the bill is dumb.  Of course that's just my opinion.  As well as the opinion of a large number of highly visible companies who have called for its repeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grodney Town

grodney

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:
  •  the allowing businesses to discriminate part of the bill is dumb

I still don't see that in the bill exactly. What lines is that written on? Or what language I should say???

I don't know how to explain it any better than the article I quoted in my first reply to you, and the other multitude of articles out there.  Have a great weekend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deleted. Hamlet

Deleted.

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

I agree that they should not have snuck in the no local minimum wage hike. but could it be the state does not want Charlotte to take the path of Seattle? ($15.00) minimum wage for high school skill jobs?

I just wonder how people who make $16.00 an hour right now would feel about that?

 

Whilst I think that the minimum wage should be raised, I don't think the minimum wage should go any higher than $10/hour for minimal-skilled jobs. Though to be honest, I haven't lived on minimum wage for almost 20 years, I'm fortunate to get $55/hour.

Though I still think that the state should allow cities and municipalities to set their own minimum wage as then it allow different parts of the state, with different living costs, to adjust their minimum wage to allow people to live comfortably.

The more I think about it, the more I think Charlotte and Mecklenburg should be governed like a autonomous municipality, like many 'districts' in Spain such as Catalonia and Valencia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silicon Dogwoods Whistle-Stop

Silicon Dogwoods

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, vassago said:

 

I think it's also important to highlight section 2.1 that prevents municipalities from raising the minimum wage.  The current minimum wage in NC is $7.25; when I was working as a fry boy at Chili's in 1997 the adjusted minimum wage was $7.39. 
 
What does that have to do with bathrooms?

Not a damn thing.

Just another way for the rubes to backhand the cities.

44 minutes ago, Piedmont767 said:

Whilst I think that the minimum wage should be raised, I don't think the minimum wage should go any higher than $10/hour for minimal-skilled jobs. Though to be honest, I haven't lived on minimum wage for almost 20 years, I'm fortunate to get $55/hour.

Though I still think that the state should allow cities and municipalities to set their own minimum wage as then it allow different parts of the state, with different living costs, to adjust their minimum wage to allow people to live comfortably.

The more I think about it, the more I think Charlotte and Mecklenburg should be governed like a autonomous municipality, like many 'districts' in Spain such as Catalonia and Valencia. 

#secedeCharlotte

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kermit Metropolitan Area

kermit

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

I agree that they should not have snuck in the no local minimum wage hike. but could it be the state does not want Charlotte to take the path of Seattle? ($15.00) minimum wage for high school skill jobs?

 

Why should the state dictate local policy? The RWNJs in Raleigh have demonstrated many times that they believe local democracy is irrelevant. How kind (and ironic) of them to take that constitutional right from us as well.

(btw there is no evidence of negative economic impact from local minimum wage hikes in the US)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eastsider Burg

eastsider

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, QCxpat said:

States banning official travel to North Carolina because of HB2:  Connecticut, New York, Vermont, Washington.

Cities banning official travel to North Carolina because of HB2:  Boston, New York, San Francisco, Seattle.

 

Washington DC now added to the list

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silicon Dogwoods Whistle-Stop

Silicon Dogwoods

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

I agree that they should not have snuck in the no local minimum wage hike. but could it be the state does not want Charlotte to take the path of Seattle? ($15.00) minimum wage for high school skill jobs?

I just wonder how people who make $16.00 an hour right now would feel about that?

 

Taking the path of one of the smartest, most desirable cities in the country-what a shame that would be for all involved.

It's no surprise that the hooples in the General Assembly want to prevent this from happening. 

Smart, they aint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QCxpat Town

QCxpat

Posted
Posted

From The New York Times, Saturday, April 2, 2016 

North Carolina Law May Risk Federal Aid

ttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/us/politics/north-carolina-anti-discrimination-law-obama-federal-funds.html?_r=0

The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.  By cutting off any federal money — or threatening to do so — would put major new pressure on North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local protections for gay and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can use. A loss of federal money could send the state into a budget crisis and jeopardize services that are central to daily life.

Although experts said such a drastic step was unlikely, at least immediately, the administration’s review puts North Carolina on notice that the new law could have financial consequences. Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina had assured residents the law would not jeopardize federal money for education.

But the law also represents a test for the Obama administration, which has declared that the fight for gay and transgender rights is a continuation of the civil-rights era. The North Carolina dispute forces the administration to decide how aggressively to fight on that principle.

The North Carolina law created a mandatory statewide anti-discrimination policy, but it did not include specific protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law bars transgender people from using public bathrooms that do not match the sexes on their birth certificates.

  •  
  •  
  •  

Anthony Foxx, the secretary of transportation, first raised the prospect of a review of federal funding in remarks Tuesday in North Carolina. The Department of Transportation provides roughly $1 billion a year to North Carolina. The New York Times then asked other federal agencies whether they were conducting similar reviews.

A Department of Education spokeswoman, Dorie Nolt, said Friday that her agency was also reviewing the North Carolina law “to determine any potential impact on the state’s federal education funding.”

The agency said it provided $4.3 billion to North Carolina last year for kindergarten through 12th grade and colleges.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development said it was doing a similar evaluation. “We’re reviewing the effects of the law on HUD funding allocated for North Carolina,” said Cameron French, a department spokesman.

Obama administration officials had no comment.

Any decision on federal aid would take time, experts said. Federal agencies have used the threat of lost money to pressure a handful of municipal governments in California and Illinois to change their policies and allow transgender students to use the restrooms of the gender they identify with. There is no recent precedent for the federal government’s applying similar pressure to address a state law that it sees as discriminatory.

“It would be a long process of negotiation,” said Jane R. Wettach, an education law specialist at the Duke University School of Law in Durham, N.C. “I think the federal government would be loath to do it and would give North Carolina every possibility, every chance to change their position, to change the law, to negotiate, to make some exceptions. I think they’d go back and forth for a while and try to come to a negotiated settlement.”

Mr. McCrory, a Republican who is seeking re-election, and other supporters of the law have been aware, but dismissive, of suggestions that the measure might endanger the state’s federal largess. Mr. McCrory’s office did not respond to messages on Friday.

Dan Forest, the Republican lieutenant governor and the president of the State Senate, said he expected that federal aid would continue. He noted that many states did not explicitly provide gay and transgender people with anti-discrimination protection. Neither does federal law.

“It would be wrong — even illegal — to single out North Carolina for unfavorable treatment,” Mr. Forest said in an emailed statement. He said the state complied with the Constitution and federal laws. “I’m confident that we will continue to receive this federal money

Mr. Forest is correct that federal anti-discrimination laws do not explicitly mention gay and transgender people: the Obama administration has repeatedly called on Congress to pass a law banning discrimination against them in employment decisions. On several occasions, however, the administration has also said that gay, lesbian and transgender people are already covered by laws banning sex discrimination.

Last year, a federal judge in Virginia rejected that notion, ruling that restricting the bathroom choices for transgender students did not violate federal law. The Obama administration had argued otherwise and the case is on appeal.

The Obama administration would not need to go to court to withhold grant money, but doing so would surely lead to a court fight, especially since the law is unsettled.

Advocacy groups have praised the Obama administration for its broad view of civil rights laws. During the past seven years, “the fight for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality has reached an incredible crescendo,” Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said last year.

James D. Esseks, who works on gender and sexual orientation issues for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the North Carolina law represented a chance for the Obama administration to stand behind those views. He called on the federal government to say: “Hey folks, we’re serious here. We’re not going to give you all this federal money if you’re requiring discrimination in every corner of the state.”

North Carolina has faced criticism from businesses including Bank of America, which has its headquarters in Charlotte, N.C.; Apple; and Facebook. The National Basketball Association suggested that it might move the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte. The White House called the law “meanspirited.”

In a video message on Tuesday, Mr. McCrory complained about “a vicious, nationwide smear campaign,” and he lashed out at critics in his state, including Attorney General Roy Cooper, and beyond North Carolina. Lawmakers had said that they were trying to prevent men from dressing as women to enter bathrooms and commit assaults. Critics said there was no evidence that had happened.

“Disregarding the facts, other politicians — from the White House to mayors to state capitals and City Council members and even our attorney general — have initiated and promoted conflict to advance their political agenda and tear down our state, even if it means defying the Constitution and their oath of office,” Mr. McCrory said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silicon Dogwoods Whistle-Stop

Silicon Dogwoods

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, mpretori said:

How can the state be this STUPID. "safety" of bathrooms > schools, roads, private and federal investment. Makes sense. 

This isn't and never was about the bathrooms, except to the extent that 'bathroom safety' is the hook upon which the rest of the garbage hangs. 

I've decided this is a big kabuki, although with some script yet to write.

The GOP decided to backhand Charlotte about our LGBT-protection ordinance and lard it up with all the other stuff we've seen, too.

Eventually, the law will be struck down and they know this but between now and then it's good for whipping up the Christian Dominionists and other nutters associated with the GOP. They figure worst case, it'll keep the money rolling in to fight off those @$%#@! queers for a while and get their voters to the polls this fall. Because like always, the GOP needs to stir up the religious nutters to win.

There will be some collateral damage along the way-events, arts, maybe loss of a corporate relo but they don't care.

The only thing that will stop them is loss of the AA hub at CLT (maybe) or loss of a corporate hq (maybe.) They figure the courts will step in and save them from themselves before too many really bad things start to happen.

Still, it sucks. What they've done is deceitful and wrong. And they're playing with fire. This could easily reach critical mass and blow up in their faces before they know it, causing irreparable damage to North Carolina and especially Charlotte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.