Jump to content

NC Civil Rights


southslider

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Piedmont767 said:

https://www.charlotteagenda.com/44997/hold-creating-author-profilei-love-lgbt-community-support-house-bill-2/

I think I just gave myself concussion from hitting my head against the wall...

Yeah I think the Agenda felt obligated to post one dissenting editorial coming from a HB2 supporter, but this really just serves to show how shallow their arguments are, repeating every fallacy that has already been thoroughly dismantled over the last week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah, banging your head at the op-ed?  Or at agenda for printing it?  I realize maybe a differing opinion could be published, but wow.

Also, where are people getting this "70% of NC residents support HB2"?  I've seen it a few places but haven't seen the source.

Oh, and by the way, same person (emphasis mine): "Charlotte business owner Heather Garofalo encouraged lawmakers to outlaw local anti-discrimination ordinances, saying they threaten her religious right to choose not to serve LGBT customers.   "Business owners like myself, we would be forced to check our deepest-held beliefs at the door or suffer fines of $500, jail time, lawsuits," Garofalo said. "I am asking for a right to provide for my family."

http://www.wral.com/nc-lawmakers-bar-lgbt-protections-against-discrimination/15594951/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piedmont767 said:

https://www.charlotteagenda.com/44997/hold-creating-author-profilei-love-lgbt-community-support-house-bill-2/

I think I just gave myself concussion from hitting my head against the wall...

How can anybody defend this law? It makes us look backwards and uneducated. That woman has just made herself look very stupid to most of Charlotte through her Charlotte Agenda article. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, CLT704 said:

How can anybody defend this law? It makes us look backwards and uneducated. That woman has just made herself look very stupid to most of Charlotte through her Charlotte Agenda article. 

 

article. She wrote a nice article. It wasn't nasty, combative, or beotchy in any manner. She represented the majority of Charlotte citizens. Mayor Roberts screwed everything up with here foolish agenda. She needs to serve the community and not focus on special groups. We all have our opinions in my world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, caterpillar2 said:

 

article. She wrote a nice article. It wasn't nasty, combative, or beotchy in any manner. She represented the majority of Charlotte citizens. Mayor Roberts screwed everything up with here foolish agenda. She needs to serve the community and not focus on special groups. We all have our opinions in my world.

Evidence for "representing a majority of Charlotte citizens"? LGBT members are people too, and under existing laws, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against LGBT members. She wasn't focusing on a "special group", she was trying to prevent discrimination and ensure LGBT members are treated with respect. How would you like it, if you were discriminated against for for you love or who you are? 

I don't agree with you and your post definitely made me shake my head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grodney said:

Yeah, banging your head at the op-ed?  Or at agenda for printing it?  I realize maybe a differing opinion could be published, but wow.

Also, where are people getting this "70% of NC residents support HB2"?  I've seen it a few places but haven't seen the source.

Oh, and by the way, same person (emphasis mine): "Charlotte business owner Heather Garofalo encouraged lawmakers to outlaw local anti-discrimination ordinances, saying they threaten her religious right to choose not to serve LGBT customers.   "Business owners like myself, we would be forced to check our deepest-held beliefs at the door or suffer fines of $500, jail time, lawsuits," Garofalo said. "I am asking for a right to provide for my family."

http://www.wral.com/nc-lawmakers-bar-lgbt-protections-against-discrimination/15594951/

What business does this woman own so I can make sure to never go there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, caterpillar2 said:

Why wasn't there a vote. It seems to be a consensus among the non LGBT that the issue was when Mayor Roberts started pushing the bathroom agenda and raising attention to it. Otherwise, I don't feel most would have blinked an eye. We certainly get some winners to run this city :(

Can you please provide the evidence the the author "represented the majority of Charlotte citizens.", as you have claimed?  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Piedmont767 said:

Evidence for "representing a majority of Charlotte citizens"? LGBT members are people too, and under existing laws, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against LGBT members. She wasn't focusing on a "special group", she was trying to prevent discrimination and ensure LGBT members are treated with respect. How would you like it, if you were discriminated against for for you love or who you are? 

I don't agree with you and your post definitely made me shake my head. 

Of course I wouldn't like it. I have a very good gay friend and my son is gay. Neither have had issues and likely never will. They are not flamboyant or flamers so they don't really draw much attention. I don't believe in discrimination but that also works both ways. I posted an earlier article about problems I have confronted as a middle aged, white, retired military retiree in getting employment as a teacher and being refused for being middle aged and or white.  Additionally, when in college, I worked at a very nice restaurant where I was the only straight waiter. The others would have nothing to do with me and were extremely unwelcoming and rude. At my first day at work, I walked to the table where they were all sitting and introduced myself. I told them my name and their leader (apparently)  jumped up and sarcastically said, "congratulations." The others walked away from me. So, I have been much nicer to the LGBT that I have confronted than they have been to me. And, maybe when they add "retired white military retirees over 40" to the anti-discrimination clause, I will be more supportive. I certainly hate to see the point where an employer has to hire someone because of something like sexual preferences. I will possibly just be another obstacle for people like myself seeking employment. Why can't employers just hire the best for the job based on nothing else? I am not bother with this ordinance or whatever it is, I do have my concerns. I don't believe that discrimination is a problem these days anyway. I hope your "head shake" helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, grodney said:

Can you please provide the evidence the the author "represented the majority of Charlotte citizens.", as you have claimed?  Thanks.

Sure, after you present the evidence that she "doesn't represent the majority." I am not arguing the issue, just voicing my opinion and I know that in the world of many, no other opinions are tolerated or considered. But, life goes on and it really doesn't matter that much to me. I am just surprised that such an issue is an issue. I only want equality for all and no special privileges for any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, caterpillar2 said:

Of course I wouldn't like it. I have a very good gay friend and my son is gay. Neither have had issues and likely never will. They are not flamboyant or flamers so they don't really draw much attention. I don't believe in discrimination but that also works both ways. I posted an earlier article about problems I have confronted as a middle aged, white, retired military retiree in getting employment as a teacher and being refused for being middle aged and or white.  Additionally, when in college, I worked at a very nice restaurant where I was the only straight waiter. The others would have nothing to do with me and were extremely unwelcoming and rude. At my first day at work, I walked to the table where they were all sitting and introduced myself. I told them my name and their leader (apparently)  jumped up and sarcastically said, "congratulations." The others walked away from me. So, I have been much nicer to the LGBT that I have confronted than they have been to me. And, maybe when they add "retired white military retirees over 40" to the anti-discrimination clause, I will be more supportive. I certainly hate to see the point where an employer has to hire someone because of something like sexual preferences. I will possibly just be another obstacle for people like myself seeking employment. Why can't employers just hire the best for the job based on nothing else? I am not bother with this ordinance or whatever it is, I do have my concerns. I don't believe that discrimination is a problem these days anyway.

 

From what I can gather, your rationale for discrimination is a few anecdotal circumstances you've experienced in your lifetime.  Despite your personal perception, the reality is discrimination is still an issue, and one that needs to be addressed, not ignored.  Your experiences are yours, and yours alone.  To project them onto others and claim that discrimination isn't an issue is a fallacy and frankly diminishes any message you are trying to promote.  Charlotte is a large, cosmopolitan American city.  HB2 does not reflect the beliefs of Charlotteans.  Does it reflect the beliefs of North Carolinian's?  Unfortunately, I believe so.  But that's why I choose to live in a city, which tend to lean more progressive and liberally, as opposed to some small rural community with "conservative" values.  Whatever that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I think needs to happen:

 

- The state rewrites the bill allowing cities to enact their bills for sexual orientation protections with only transgendered people who get their sex changed or birth certificate changes being allowed to use the bathroom of their indentified sex.

 

- Don't even fool with adding LGBT protections for the state. Just let the cities & universities do our thing.

 

That's a compromise that I think will get all these companies off our (Charlotte/Triangle) nuts that the NC GOP can accept.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, caterpillar2 said:

Of course I wouldn't like it. I have a very good gay friend and my son is gay. Neither have had issues and likely never will. They are not flamboyant or flamers so they don't really draw much attention. I don't believe in discrimination but that also works both ways. I posted an earlier article about problems I have confronted as a middle aged, white, retired military retiree in getting employment as a teacher and being refused for being middle aged and or white.  Additionally, when in college, I worked at a very nice restaurant where I was the only straight waiter. The others would have nothing to do with me and were extremely unwelcoming and rude. At my first day at work, I walked to the table where they were all sitting and introduced myself. I told them my name and their leader (apparently)  jumped up and sarcastically said, "congratulations." The others walked away from me. So, I have been much nicer to the LGBT that I have confronted than they have been to me. And, maybe when they add "retired white military retirees over 40" to the anti-discrimination clause, I will be more supportive. I certainly hate to see the point where an employer has to hire someone because of something like sexual preferences. I will possibly just be another obstacle for people like myself seeking employment. Why can't employers just hire the best for the job based on nothing else? I am not bother with this ordinance or whatever it is, I do have my concerns. I don't believe that discrimination is a problem these days anyway. I hope your "head shake" helped.

Ok, so you think that those waiter's orientation is why they were rude to you?! 

The bill wasn't about making employers hire somewhere based off orientation, if thats what you meant by what I bolded, it was about preventing sexual orientation being a ground of somewhere being fired from a job. Surely, you think that is as bad as someone being fired for being Black, Hispanic, Asian etc. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ah59396 said:

 

From what I can gather, your rationale for discrimination is a few anecdotal circumstances you've experienced in your lifetime.  Despite your personal perception, the reality is discrimination is still an issue, and one that needs to be addressed, not ignored.  Your experiences are yours, and yours alone.  To project them onto others and claim that discrimination isn't an issue is a fallacy and frankly diminishes any message you are trying to promote.  Charlotte is a large, cosmopolitan American city.  HB2 does not reflect the beliefs of Charlotteans.  Does it reflect the beliefs of North Carolinian's?  Unfortunately, I believe so.  But that's why I choose to live in a city, which tend to lean more progressive and liberally, as opposed to some small rural community with "conservative" values.  Whatever that means.

You are either not understanding what I wrote or misreading. Yes, my experiences are mine and the experience of everyone else is theirs. I am simply implying that the LGBT community is not the only group to be discriminated against and I feel that everyone that breathes should enjoy 'not' being discriminated against. The most qualified person for the job is the one that should get it. My point is that I have been discriminated against for jobs and I had no recourse.  I am a big city person and have lived in cities larger than Charlotte longer than I have lived here. That hasn't changed my opinion  that a person should not get job  preference for anything other than being the most qualified. If you can't understand my point, Surely, you can't see this as anything but fair. If you believe that preferential treatment is owed to individuals because of sexual preference, I strongly disagree. I do not believe that discrimination for anything other than behavior is an issue today. I find it unfortunate that it bothers you that the whole world doesn't think like you.  I've lived on four continents and spent most of my life overseas. I do have a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, caterpillar2 said:

You are either not understanding what I wrote or misreading. Yes, my experiences are mine and the experience of everyone else is theirs. I am simply implying that the LGBT community is not the only group to be discriminated against and I feel that everyone that breathes should enjoy 'not' being discriminated against. The most qualified person for the job is the one that should get it. My point is that I have been discriminated against for jobs and I had no recourse.  I am a big city person and have lived in cities larger than Charlotte longer than I have lived here. That hasn't changed my opinion  that a person should not get job  preference for anything other than being the most qualified. If you can't understand my point, Surely, you can't see this as anything but fair. If you believe that preferential treatment is owed to individuals because of sexual preference, I strongly disagree. I do not believe that discrimination for anything other than behavior is an issue today.

There is nothing in this bill that determines someone should be given preferential treatment over hiring.  So I am clueless as to what you are referring to.  That said, it's unlikely that you, or I for that matter, as heterosexual white guys, have dealt with anything even close to the discrimination these other groups have to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ah59396 said:

There is nothing in this bill that determines someone should be given preferential treatment over hiring.  So I am clueless as to what you are referring to.  That said, it's unlikely that you, or I for that matter, as heterosexual white guys, have dealt with anything even close to the discrimination these other groups have to deal with.

That what confused me, I mentioned it in my post. 

@caterpillar2 I always appreciate different views, even if I disagree, could you further clarify your points please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ah59396 said:

There is nothing in this bill that determines someone should be given preferential treatment over hiring.  So I am clueless as to what you are referring to.  That said, it's unlikely that you, or I for that matter, as heterosexual white guys, have dealt with anything even close to the discrimination these other groups have to deal with.

Likewise, I am clueless to what specifically you are referring to as far as far as the "other" groups.  Surely you can use common sense and understand that this bill opens up opportunities for lawsuits for not hiring the LGBT community applicants. I have had to deal with these matters for years in hiring minorities and dealing with quotas. At one point, if I didn't hire a minority, I had to write a letter of justification to the EEO and prove that I wasn't discriminating. But, at that time, I had LGBT in my organization without any problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Piedmont767 said:

Ok, so you think that those waiter's orientation is why they were rude to you?! 

The bill wasn't about making employers hire somewhere based off orientation, if thats what you meant by what I bolded, it was about preventing sexual orientation being a ground of somewhere being fired from a job. Surely, you think that is as bad as someone being fired for being Black, Hispanic, Asian etc. ? 

Yes, that is exactly why he was rude along with his friends. But, I never held a grudge. That did cause me to quit and find another restaurant.

I don't think that sexual orientation is something that is priority when hiring. The priority in employing someone is gaining an asset that will make money for the company and enhance business. I think that it is bad for firing anyone for anything besides poor performance or degrading a business. I think it is also bad for being afraid to fire a bad worker because he fits one of the aforementioned categories. But, why would one fire a someone for his/her sexual preferences or being black, Hispanic, or Asian after being hired? That wouldn't make sense.

Personally, I don't give a rats a$$ if someone is gay. It means nothing to me. I want to hire and fire solely based on performance and that is the way it should be and I can't imagine coming terms with thinking any other way. It one's qualified, hire. If not qualified, don't hire. This doesn't make me a Republican or a racist. I am neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, caterpillar2 said:

Likewise, I am clueless to what specifically you are referring to as far as far as the "other" groups.  Surely you can use common sense and understand that this bill opens up opportunities for lawsuits for not hiring the LGBT community applicants. I have had to deal with these matters for years in hiring minorities and dealing with quotas. At one point, if I didn't hire a minority, I had to write a letter of justification to the EEO and prove that I wasn't discriminating. But, at that time, I had LGBT in my organization without any problems.

Other = the disabled, minority races, the LGBT community, ect.

4 minutes ago, caterpillar2 said:

Yes, that is exactly why he was rude along with his friends. But, I never held a grudge. That did cause me to quit and find another restaurant.

I don't think that sexual orientation is something that is priority when hiring. The priority in employing someone is gaining an asset that will make money for the company and enhance business. I think that it is bad for firing anyone for anything besides poor performance or degrading a business. I think it is also bad for being afraid to fire a bad worker because he fits one of the aforementioned categories. But, why would one fire a someone for his/her sexual preferences or being black, Hispanic, or Asian after being hired? That wouldn't make sense.

Personally, I don't give a rats a$$ if someone is gay. It means nothing to me. I want to hire and fire solely based on performance and that is the way it should be and I can't imagine coming terms with thinking any other way. It one's qualified, hire. If not qualified, don't hire. This doesn't make me a Republican or a racist. I am neither.

Again, there is nothing about jobs in the Charlotte Ordinance.  You can't just infer, because the ordinance creates specific language to protect against discrimination, that you are forced to hire someone due to sexual orientation or race or religion, ect.  That's not using common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caterpillar2 said:

Sure, after you present the evidence that she "doesn't represent the majority." I am not arguing the issue, just voicing my opinion

You stated it as a fact.  If it's an opinion, it would help the reader if you stated it as an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.