NC Civil Rights

[Miesian Corners]

58 minutes ago, jednc said:

I have a couple of honest questions for anyone who actually knows the answers...

1. Assuming HB2 hadn't been passed, did Charlotte have any sort of ordinance that protected gay people from discrimination? If so, what were the consequences for breaking the ordinance?

2. I have read HB2 for myself, but I'm unclear on something (perhaps several things and I just don't realize it yet). Since the Fed government doesn't recognize gay people as a protected class (for discrimination purposes), what actual difference does HB2 make to someone who is gay in NC? I'm not talking about symbolism or how it makes anyone feel. I'm asking what are the actual consequences in physical, monetary or legal terms.

I am not trying to imply anything by asking these questions other than I want to understand this better. If I seem blunt, it's just because I want to cut to the chase of what I'm actually wondering. Also, I'm sure I'll have follow up questions/comments, but I don't live here, so be patient...

1. No, Charlotte didn't have LGBT protections for city residents before the new ordinance (it did and continues to have protection for city workers, however--as does Meckenburg County).

2. The various ordinances in municipal and county governments in North Carolina that previously existed to protect LGBT residents (and others) are history. Where there was once protection within certain geographies, now there is none.

[cltcane]

1 hour ago, Miesian Corners said:

1. No, Charlotte didn't have LGBT protections for city residents before the new ordinance (it did and continues to have protection for city workers, however--as does Meckenburg County).

2. The various ordinances in municipal and county governments in North Carolina that previously existed to protect LGBT residents (and others) are history. Where there was once protection within certain geographies, now there is none.

2. ...and there can no longer be any protection.  It is no longer possible for any municipality to pass any ordinance protecting LGBT people (residents or visitors) from discrimination in employment and public accommodations.  HB2 not only repealed Charlotte's ordinance (and other NC cities' ordinances offering some of the same protections to LGBT people) but also made sure sexual orientation and gender identity could never become protected classes in any city or county in the state as long as this law is on the books.

[Silicon Dogwoods]

1 hour ago, jednc said:

SERIOUSLY?

OK.

In the interest of civility, I'll withdraw the assertion.

[jednc]

1 hour ago, Miesian Corners said:

1. No, Charlotte didn't have LGBT protections for city residents before the new ordinance (it did and continues to have protection for city workers, however--as does Meckenburg County).

2. The various ordinances in municipal and county governments in North Carolina that previously existed to protect LGBT residents (and others) are history. Where there was once protection within certain geographies, now there is none.

So, just to make sure I understand...

Your answer for #2 erases what you said for #1? I believe that's what you are saying, but in parentheses in #1 you say "continues to", so just wanted to make sure I'm reading this correctly.

*and thanks for the info...

29 minutes ago, cltcane said:

2. ...and there can no longer be any protection.  It is no longer possible for any municipality to pass any ordinance protecting LGBT people (residents or visitors) from discrimination in employment and public accommodations.  HB2 not only repealed Charlotte's ordinance (and other NC cities' ordinances offering some of the same protections to LGBT people) but also made sure sexual orientation and gender identity could never become protected classes in any city or county in the state as long as this law is on the books.

This is the part that I already felt I had a pretty good handle on. I'm certainly not in the heads of those who wrote and/or voted for this bill, but this is the part of the bill/law that seemed like sour grapes over the Supreme Court overturning Amendment 1 (I think that was the name of it). 

[Spartan]

I already made up my mind mind on McCrorey long before this, but HB2 really serves as the liquid-poo icing on the more-solid-poo cake that is the McCrorrey Administration. I know I voted for him thinking that he would carry his progressive, moderate, politics with him, and I remain dissillusioned that he dropped it like a hot brick when he got to Raleigh.

Anyway. Y'all are doing a great job discussing the merits of this bill, and as a moderator I really appreciate all of y'all being civil about it. 

My question is this: Haven't transgender people been using whatever restroom they want without incident since forever? We have many existing laws to protect our kids from sexual predators. Are they not sufficient? If you don't expect these people to obey the laws we have, how is this new one going to make a difference? 

This whole episode is such blatant political pandering that it's sickening. IMO, the bill has nothing to do with the issue itself and has everything to do with advancing a larger, regressive political agenda by just outlawing all the ideas some people aren't comfortable with: gay rights, climate change, racial justice, light rail, aesthetically pleasing homes, historic trees, college kids who vote, etc.

And my final thought is this: Women are CONSTANTLY using the men's room because the women's room is always full. I don't expect that to change. 

[cltbwimob]

So I know we have some lawyer types here.  Would it be legal for the city to sue the state for damages (i.e. lost tax revenue from jobs, lost tourism dollars, potential loss of federal funding, etc.)? It would be awesome, considering the state threatened to make Charlotte pay $42,000 for the special session, if Charlotte was able to saddle the state with a court-ordered multi-million dollar bill for damages.

If it is legal and if the city were willing to take such action, I would be willing to donate to help cover legal expenses for the city, and I will match it with a donation to Cooper's campaign.  I'll bet there are many more who would donate to the cause as well.  Who wants to get a crowdfunding campaign started?  

On a more serious note I will be donating to Roy Coopers campaign and would also like to donate to each democrat running in the five most contested Senate seats in the state.  If Cooper wins and democrats net five wins in the senate, then the veto proof tyranny of the Reichpublicans in the state will be over.  

 

[Silicon Dogwoods]

20 minutes ago, cltbwimob said:

So I know we have some lawyer types here.  Would it be legal for the city to sue the state for damages (i.e. lost tax revenue from jobs, lost tourism dollars, potential loss of federal funding, etc.)? It would be awesome, considering the state threatened to make Charlotte pay $42,000 for the special session, if Charlotte was able to saddle the state with a court-ordered multi-million dollar bill for damages.

If it is legal and if the city were willing to take such action, I would be willing to donate to help cover legal expenses for the city, and I will match it with a donation to Cooper's campaign.  I'll bet there are many more who would donate to the cause as well.  Who wants to get a crowdfunding campaign started?  

On a more serious note I will be donating to Roy Coopers campaign and would also like to donate to each democrat running in the five most contested Senate seats in the state.  If Cooper wins and democrats net five wins in the senate, then the veto proof tyranny of the Reichpublicans in the state will be over.  

 

I think the city can sue the state in federal court on a 14th Amendment claim, but not in state court for damages. But I'm not a lawyer; maybe a lawyer can tell us.

[cltbwimob]

16 minutes ago, Spartan said:

My question is this: Haven't transgender people been using whatever restroom they want without incident since forever? We have many existing laws to protect our kids from sexual predators. Are they not sufficient? If you don't expect these people to obey the laws we have, how is this new one going to make a difference? 

This whole episode is such blatant political pandering that it's sickening. IMO, the bill has nothing to do with the issue itself and has everything to do with advancing a larger, regressive political agenda by just outlawing all the ideas some people aren't comfortable with: gay rights, climate change, racial justice, light rail, aesthetically pleasing homes, historic trees, college kids who vote, etc.

The second paragraph goes to the very heart of the issue.  The bathroom issue is just a convenient ruse for the underlying motivation of the law which is a) to solidify the support of the uneducated base of the Republican Party in NC for the upcoming elections, b) to once again wrest power from a local government and place it in the hands of the state, and c) to advance a radical, regressive, and discriminatory agenda.  

If the legislature was genuinely concerned about the safety of women and children they could have repealed the bathroom provision and called it a day.  And as misguided as such action would be, it could be understood at a minimum.  Instead of stopping there though, they decided to go a step further and pass a non-discrimination ordinance that blatantly left out not only transgendered  people from the list of protected individuals, but also gay individuals,  and then to top it all off they stripped all minority individuals of their right to seek recourse for any kind of discrimination under state law.  If this bill were just about bathrooms, then why did they find if necessary to pass so many other provisions with HB2?  The answer is that the bathroom issue is only a front-a means to bamboozle the public into believing that they are concerned for the general safety of the citizens when in actuality, they, knowingly or unknowingly, desire institutionalized discrimination.  

In reality this law probably doesn't functionally do much.  I am pretty sure most transpeople will continue to go to the bathroom of their choosing, and no one will be the wiser.  And I think most employers will go out of their way to avoid legitimate discrimination.  But what this law lacks in functionality is duly compensated by the fact that symbolically it says a lot about NC-a lot that I hoped would never be said.

 

[Spartan]

I actually don't think they seek to 'institutionalize discriminiation' outright, at least not as part of their agenda. That is incidental/collateral damage. They are, at least to me, playing a game of being intentionally hardlined because they knew there will be impacts and that they would get sued. The result of their game may end up being 1) the bill gets rejected, or 2) a 'compromise' that will be seen as a 'win,' but still be more restrictive than would have happened if they had tried to be reasonable and talk about ideas and create laws accordingly (i.e.: democratic process). 

You can see this pattern in all of their asinine laws. I think it's a much larger game being played. Or perhaps I've been watching too much House of Cards. 

[cltbwimob]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

I actually don't think they seek to 'institutionalize discriminiation' outright, at least not as part of their agenda. That is incidental/collateral damage. They are, at least to me, playing a game of being intentionally hardlined because they knew there will be impacts and that they would get sued. The result of their game may end up being 1) the bill gets rejected, or 2) a 'compromise' that will be seen as a 'win,' but still be more restrictive than would have happened if they had tried to be reasonable and talk about ideas and create laws accordingly (i.e.: democratic process). 

You can see this pattern in all of their asinine laws. I think it's a much larger game being played. Or perhaps I've been watching too much House of Cards. 

These @$$holes in Raleigh are not intelligent enough to play Frank Underwood's game.  

Seriously, I don't think they play the long game, I think they just act on the whims of a mistaken ideology informed by misunderstandings of religious teachings. Having spent a lot of time around devoutly Southern Baptist Whites, I can tell you that many of them harbor latent discriminatory attitudes against minorities.  They'll be the first to tell you they judge no one on anything other than character and at the same time use the most insensitive remarks when referring to minority individuals.  Homosexuality for them is an especially large punching bag; it is a pet sin in southern Christian circles.  I'll guarantee I heard in church teachings how wrong homosexuality was five times more than I did every other 'sin'.  (Never mind that Jesus said "Whoever is without sin among you let him cast the first stone").

There are other examples, and it's too much to go into here, but if you ever talk to Southern White religious types who attend the old country church en masse, you will get the sense that many-not all, but many- still harbor many of the same sentiments they did in the 1960s.  And the GOP controlled Reichstag seems to be filled with the same types of individuals-Southern 'devoutly' religious whites whose voting is informed by latent discriminatory attitudes borne of the church. That's why I say they, knowingly or unknowingly, seek to institutionalize discrimination.  Perhaps it's overt, or perhaps it's more subtle, but laws like HB2 prove that they harbor discriminatory attitudes and want to codify such attitudes into state law.

[DCMetroRaleigh]

The Department of Justice:
 

Quote:

Attorney General Holder announced today that the Department of Justice will take the position in litigation that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, including transgender status.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attor...discrimination

[DCMetroRaleigh]

HB2:  "...no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein."

This precludes any civil rights enforcement in state courts.  Where is the general, widespread outcry over the fact that you can't even litigate race, sex, national origin, religious, age discrimination claims under state law in NC anymore?  Why isn't the NAACP, Moral Mondays, and other traditional civil rights leaders and groups marching in the streets over this wholesale assassination of civil rights in state law?

[grodney]

54 minutes ago, DCMetroRaleigh said:

HB2:  "...no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein."

This precludes any civil rights enforcement in state courts.  Where is the general, widespread outcry over the fact that you can't even litigate race, sex, national origin, religious, age discrimination claims under state law in NC anymore?  Why isn't the NAACP, Moral Mondays, and other traditional civil rights leaders and groups marching in the streets over this wholesale assassination of civil rights in state law?

I've been pretty concerned about it, but yeah, I haven't seen that part emphasized.

 

[Spartan]

4 hours ago, cltbwimob said:

These @$$holes in Raleigh are not intelligent enough to play Frank Underwood's game.  

Seriously, I don't think they play the long game, I think they just act on the whims of a mistaken ideology informed by misunderstandings of religious teachings. Having spent a lot of time around devoutly Southern Baptist Whites, I can tell you that many of them harbor latent discriminatory attitudes against minorities.  They'll be the first to tell you they judge no one on anything other than character and at the same time use the most insensitive remarks when referring to minority individuals.  Homosexuality for them is an especially large punching bag; it is a pet sin in southern Christian circles.  I'll guarantee I heard in church teachings how wrong homosexuality was five times more than I did every other 'sin'.  (Never mind that Jesus said "Whoever is without sin among you let him cast the first stone").

There are other examples, and it's too much to go into here, but if you ever talk to Southern White religious types who attend the old country church en masse, you will get the sense that many-not all, but many- still harbor many of the same sentiments they did in the 1960s.  And the GOP controlled Reichstag seems to be filled with the same types of individuals-Southern 'devoutly' religious whites whose voting is informed by latent discriminatory attitudes borne of the church. That's why I say they, knowingly or unknowingly, seek to institutionalize discrimination.  Perhaps it's overt, or perhaps it's more subtle, but laws like HB2 prove that they harbor discriminatory attitudes and want to codify such attitudes into state law.

I think that type of thinking is part of the central makeup of the Tea Party's ideology. I don't think it's overt discrimination from their perspective, but I think they refuse to acknowledge that the result is the same

[asthasr]

The difficulty with the EEOC and filing suit in federal court is that federal courts are both slower and more expensive than state courts. By removing all state-level avenues it becomes much more of an uphill struggle for employees to find any justice in employment disputes. In my opinion this is the true purpose of the bill, and wouldn't be surprised to see the trans-specific measures repealed (to great fanfare, etc.) while those pernicious clauses about "does not create...[any] private right of action" remain.

[urbanlover568]

For us who were glorifying south carolina, well here you have it. 

 

http://www.wistv.com/story/31659358/sen-lee-bright-introduces-bathroom-bill-to-state-senate

[Niner National]

Good, I hope more states in the push legislation through just so NC stops looking so bad.

They'll all be overturned in federal court anyway, but I'd rather us blend into the crowd than stand alone and take all the heat.

[RiverwoodCLT]

I am sad to see my home state taken over by  fear mongers.  The are sell fear all over the state.  They also do not believe in a fair wage by this bill.  Looks like they want all the control of every city in NC base in Raleigh so GA can keep an eye on them.

 

I guess 204 Million does not mean much in the GA.

[Spartan]

As it stands now, the South Carolina bill only affects bathrooms, so unless it gets changed it would be far less detrimental than the North Carolina bill. The bill is being proposed by our favorite bigot, secessionist, and tax evader, Lee Bright. This is the same man who has proposed many other brilliant ideas including a adopting a state religion, creating a state currency, and among other questionable beliefs, is a pro-secessionist. I mention that only because his bills frequently don't go very far. Are y'all sure you want Mecklenburg County to secede? 

 

[Silicon Dogwoods]

51 minutes ago, Spartan said:

As it stands now, the South Carolina bill only affects bathrooms, so unless it gets changed it would be far less detrimental than the North Carolina bill. The bill is being proposed by our favorite bigot, secessionist, and tax evader, Lee Bright. This is the same man who has proposed many other brilliant ideas including a adopting a state religion, creating a state currency, and among other questionable beliefs, is a pro-secessionist. I mention that only because his bills frequently don't go very far. Are y'all sure you want Mecklenburg County to secede? 

 

Yes, as soon as possible. Charlotte, the capital of Mecklenburg, the nation's 51st state.

The only thing Charlotte and North Carolina have in common is 'N.C.'

23 hours ago, DCMetroRaleigh said:

HB2:  "...no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein."

This precludes any civil rights enforcement in state courts.  Where is the general, widespread outcry over the fact that you can't even litigate race, sex, national origin, religious, age discrimination claims under state law in NC anymore?  Why isn't the NAACP, Moral Mondays, and other traditional civil rights leaders and groups marching in the streets over this wholesale assassination of civil rights in state law?

Because religious black folks are squeamish about the gay, let alone transgenders.

[cltcane]

34 minutes ago, Silicon Dogwoods said:

Yes, as soon as possible. Charlotte, the capital of Mecklenburg, the nation's 51st state.

The only thing Charlotte and North Carolina have in common is 'N.C.'

Because religious black folks are squeamish about the gay, let alone transgenders.

Yes, religious African Americans have historically been very anti-LGBT, almost as much as white Evangelical Christians, with some even denying that the LGBT rights movement is a part of the greater civil rights movement.  This has always bothered me because, as a gay man, I feel a moral obligation to stand up for the rights of all other marginalized groups (and more generally the rights of ALL people to be treated fairly and equally under the law and in society) and firmly oppose any form of discrimination against them regardless of my level of understanding of their struggle.  I can't say I have any idea what it's like to be transgendered, but I sure as hell am going to fight alongside the trans community to end transphobia and secure fundamental rights for all members of the LGBT community.  And my entire small-town Southern family is right there with me.

[grodney]

1 hour ago, cltcane said:

Yes, religious African Americans have historically been very anti-LGBT, almost as much as white Evangelical Christians, with some even denying that the LGBT rights movement is a part of the greater civil rights movement.  This has always bothered me because, as a gay man, I feel a moral obligation to stand up for the rights of all other marginalized groups (and more generally the rights of ALL people to be treated fairly and equally under the law and in society) 

Back when Amendment 1 (and nationwide anti gay marriage laws) were being overturned, I was in a waiting room and 3 guys (2 black and 1 white) were watching CNN and discussing gay marriage.  The black guys were especially demonstrative about how wrong it is.  I wasn't ready for that situation, and I hate that I didn't politely jump in and question them, relating it to civil rights on the whole.  I hope to do better next time.

 

[rancenc]

9 minutes ago, grodney said:

Back when Amendment 1 (and nationwide anti gay marriage laws) were being overturned, I was in a waiting room and 3 guys (2 black and 1 white) were watching CNN and discussing gay marriage.  The black guys were especially demonstrative about how wrong it is.  I wasn't ready for that situation, and I hate that I didn't politely jump in and question them, relating it to civil rights on the whole.  I hope to do better next time.

 

Actually the average African-American voter, especially in the South has never been enamored with equating LGBT rights to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.  I have heard numerous times from black folks, that "God created my skin color but gay people chose their lifestyle.  And have also heard similar attitudes within the Hispanic community, especially those from very conservative backgrounds from Mexico and Central America (not so much from South American and the Caribbean).

[QCxpat]

Recipe for Peace, by LaStassia Hebril, 5th grade, Bethel, Maine

"First, find a big heart pan,

Take two cups of sharing,

Take one cup of caring,

One and one-half cups of loving water,

Three cups of helpfulness,

Put it all in your heart pan,

Bake for five minutes,

Take out of the oven,

And there you have it, peace." 

[Spartan]

3 hours ago, Silicon Dogwoods said:

Yes, as soon as possible. Charlotte, the capital of Mecklenburg, the nation's 51st state.

The only thing Charlotte and North Carolina have in common is 'N.C.'

Because religious black folks are squeamish about the gay, let alone transgenders.

Well, to be fair that's different than the calls to secede to South Carolina.Becoming an independent county or very small state would be interesting. I think this is in the same vein as New York City's periodic discussion of seceding from New York state.