Perception of Charlotte Nationwide

[Nick2]

3 minutes ago, Dale said:

Jesus, some of you need Snicker's Bars. No one is being denied bathroom access. There is no witch hunt against gays. And Charlotte will continue to prosper. As for businesses which are huffing and puffing and threatening to boycott ... well ... bye.

You seriously think it's good for us to pass a law that makes NC lose out on jobs and makes our great state look bad?

This law actually has a ton of other stuff added into it that has next to nothing to do with the whole bathroom debate which in itself, can be argued. But local governments are no longer allowed to have a higher minimum wage than the state level. It strips veterans of anti-discrimination protections.

Also the speed with which such a controversial law was passed is disgusting. There was very little discussion before hand and it was extremely partisan politics as usual. God I hate the polarized two-party system.

By the way if you didn't know, transgender people who have transitioned to the opposite sex completely won't be affected if they get their birth certificate changed. Just thought I'd mention that if no one else has.

[vassago]

37 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

How would one of you explain this issue as though they were talking to a 70 year old man that desperately wants to understand the ramifications. Could someone write an educated, levelheaded response, that I can send my dad? Frankly I'm too tired, hung over, and under the weather (not a good combination) to have any patience for my father. 

Please help, before he talks to the only gay friend he has about the situation, and ruins a friendship. LOL.

Salon just posted a good article. There’s no way the governor’s backward measures legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ individuals can stand

I don't know if that's what you're looking for...

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, vassago said:

Salon just posted a good article. There’s no way the governor’s backward measures legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ individuals can stand

I don't know if that's what you're looking for...

Bam, sent to my dad

[Miesian Corners]

2 hours ago, Dale said:

Jesus, some of you need Snicker's Bars. No one is being denied bathroom access. There is no witch hunt against gays. And Charlotte will continue to prosper. As for businesses which are huffing and puffing and threatening to boycott ... well ... bye.

Really? Can you be fired for being straight? If so, do you have any legal rights as a result? if you'd read the new law, you'd understand the far-reaching ramifications. 

"Another part of the bill prevents local governments from imposing higher wage standards on employers. And, it also establishes a statewide non-discrimination policy for employment and places of public accommodation. But the legislature limits those protections to race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex, or handicap; sexual orientation and gender identity are not included."--WFAE News

Edited March 25, 2016 by Miesian Corners
Added quote from WFAE

[Dale]

You're barking up the wrong tree. I think a business should be able to fire for any reason. But then I'm not an authoritarian.

In other news, my plan to keep North Carolina California-free appears to be working: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/26/san-francisco-mayor-bans-city-workers-from-traveling-to-north-carolina.html

 

 

 

 

[Deleted.]

Well, irrelevant of Dale's posts, I think they is a certain positive consequence to all this mess with LGBT issues here in NC:

Surely all this attention has shown that Charlotte is a forward-thinking city that cares about being a modern 21st century city that prohibits discrimination, but we have been held back by the state and thats not our fault. Anyone else think that?

[SgtCampsalot]

10 minutes ago, Piedmont767 said:

Surely all this attention has shown that Charlotte is a forward-thinking city that cares about being a modern 21st century city that prohibits discrimination, but we have been held back by the state and thats not our fault. Anyone else think that?

Yeah. And even more importantly, when we look back on this, this may be the tipping point that marks the beginning of a long-term shift in our state's politics. Demographic trends are already on that side, but it's just a matter of time until people pay more attention. Independent redistricting will be a majorly important part of that puzzle, however.

Edited March 26, 2016 by SgtCampsalot

[DMann]

Is this the time we start a campaign to rename the Panthers the Charlotte Panthers and drop the Carolina name?

[Dale]

^ Yes, I agree that we should move on to more pressing issues.

[SgtCampsalot]

While we're at it, those Carolina Hurricanes got a lotta nerve fraternizing with the Raleighmeisters. 

[Nick2]

Wait, are we just going to ignore that the mayor of San Francisco literally just said that publicly paid employees are not allowed to travel to NC except for emergencies. Talk about overreacting. It's one thing to denounce it but that's a little crazy.

[vicupstate]

4 hours ago, Nick2 said:

Wait, are we just going to ignore that the mayor of San Francisco literally just said that publicly paid employees are not allowed to travel to NC except for emergencies. Talk about overreacting. It's one thing to denounce it but that's a little crazy.

Why shouldn't the Mayor of a city have a say in how the city's money is spent? This is nothing more a boycott, which is the same thing that started the modern Civil rights movement in 1955.  

[11 HouseBZ]

Cause it's not the city's money being spent, it's the employee's money. Everybody has their right to boycott, but you can't force others to boycott as well. My reason for saying this is some people there have family here. You can't dictate how people live their lives outside of work, granted that it's not illegal. While what's being done in this state isn't popular (or possibly even legal), this is a bit far. 

[Dale]

Here's hoping that San Francisco's Mayor Lee's travel ban is the start of something bigger. Keep San Franciscans in San Francisco!

[Miesian Corners]

1 hour ago, 11 HouseBZ said:

Cause it's not the city's money being spent, it's the employee's money. Everybody has their right to boycott, but you can't force others to boycott as well. My reason for saying this is some people there have family here. You can't dictate how people live their lives outside of work, granted that it's not illegal. While what's being done in this state isn't popular (or possibly even legal), this is a bit far. 

The mayor of San Francisco is mandating that no city employees travel to NC for official CITY business. He said nothing about what employees of the City of San Francisco may do on their own time with their own money. 

Dale, are you saying an employer should be able to fire an employee because they're black or Presbyterian or male or because they have blonde hair...? If not, please enlighten me (the 'authoritarian').

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Miesian Corners
Spelling

[11 HouseBZ]

Ooh gotcha, sorry about the my misunderstanding. Desregard and resume conversation. 

[Nick2]

I also misread the article. But my opinion of his move remains the same. It just seems childish. 

[Dale]

8 hours ago, Miesian Corners said:

The mayor of San Francisco is mandating that no city employees travel to NC for official CITY business. He said nothing about what employees of the City of San Francisco may do on their own time with their own money. 

Dale, are you saying an employer should be able to fire an employee because they're black or Presbyterian or male or because they have blonde hair...? If not, please enlighten me (the 'authoritarian').

 

That is correct. Because I am not an authoritarian. I would never presume to dictate to a business owner whom to hire and whom to fire. I advocate for liberty.

[MilZ]

1 hour ago, Dale said:

That is correct. Because I am not an authoritarian. I would never presume to dictate to a business owner whom to hire and whom to fire. I advocate for liberty.

Yes. The liberty to not have access to the same goods and services because of your skin color, your gender, what you do in your bedroom, or what you believe in.

[elrodvt]

1 hour ago, Dale said:

That is correct. Because I am not an authoritarian. I would never presume to dictate to a business owner whom to hire and whom to fire. I advocate for liberty.

Have you often been the victim of such "liberty"?

[SgtCampsalot]

Liberty is a dubious term right now. I once went through a Rand-ian objectivist phase and thought that pure unfettered liberty was the only way to truly guarantee world equality, but then I realized how many different ways "liberty" has been co-opted by those who, at best, invoke it when they don't want to think about anyone else in this world but themselves, and at worst, were just... yknow, not nice people.

[rancenc]

13 hours ago, Dale said:

That is correct. Because I am not an authoritarian. I would never presume to dictate to a business owner whom to hire and whom to fire. I advocate for liberty.

So in essence you are in agreement with doing away with the silly I-9 and E-verify system that is mandated by both the Federal and State governments in hiring in virtually any organization (which I personally don't have a problem with myself)

[Miesian Corners]

Hey Dale, I ate a Snickers bar. Then I turned on the TV to hear that Atlanta has petitioned the NBA to take Charlotte's 2017 NBA All -Star Game. That Snickers didn't do sh*t. 

[Silicon Dogwoods]

20 hours ago, elrodvt said:

Have you often been the victim of such "liberty"?

Really. Some 'liberty.'

[caterpillar2]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 10:26 AM, Miesian Corners said:

The mayor of San Francisco is mandating that no city employees travel to NC for official CITY business. He said nothing about what employees of the City of San Francisco may do on their own time with their own money. 

Dale, are you saying an employer should be able to fire an employee because they're black or Presbyterian or male or because they have blonde hair...? If not, please enlighten me (the 'authoritarian').

 

Why would an employer fire an employee because of being black, etc. after they were hired? An employer shouldn't be afraid of consequences of firing the type person you mentioned if they are performing satisfactorily,

 I know that I am likely older than most and been around more. I am a male, middle aged, white, and straight.  I spent 25 years in the armed forces and retired as a field grade officer. I had a master's degree upon retirement and went to the board of education (in Florida) to see what would be required to become certified. I took a few courses and became certified in geography and history. At the same time, I substitute taught so I could get my foot in the door. During that time, I applied for several teaching positions to find out that if you are over 40 and married, chances were slim especially if there was a female principal. They preferred younger, cuter, and single. I understood.

I applied for a position at a correction facility which I thought would be a simple task but I was beaten out by a black Hispanic woman without  certification (just the promise that she would complete her education) and her only experience being handing out samples at Walmart's, Costco, etc.

The principal at the school where I had been substituting called me to inform me that an opening was coming up and he wanted to get me on his team. I got an interview. During the interview, he said that he was very sad to tell me that he could not hire me. A black woman applicant wanted the job. He had not met her but was phoned by the school board and told that she had preference although she also was not yet certified and had not experience.

Bottom line, I believe that people should be able to hire whomever they feel are most productive and qualified for a job before anything else. I know that people have been discriminated against for various reasons but the bottom line is that a company wants to be successful and make money or in the case of schools, have the best instructor. I experienced discrimination since I retired but I was stuck with being white and middle aged. I feel that this bill will complement the sort of unfairness I have witnessed and nobody will be accountable. Nobody should be discriminated against if they fill the general requirements of an employer including mannerisms, dress, communication skills, and ability to play with others.

I know that I will likely get criticism, but this bill will make it difficult to hire the best for the job and in the end, guys like myself will get screwed. I worked with the Department of Defense several years as a top executive and hired hundreds of individuals. All I wanted was the best for the job. I believe that people like me feel the same way and it is concerning that this a law has to be installed that will likely end up being a tool for discrimination itself.

I ended up getting a job teaching and after 8 years at two schools, I was asked to be the assistant principal. I refused as I had plans to retire and move back home to the Charlotte area. I took a short retirement after 12 years with plans of teaching in the area until I got here and said, "I don't think so."  That was when Purdue was governor and hundreds were being laid off and things really screwed up. Now, I'm good volunteering, etc.

I am not concerned about the bathroom part of the bill, but I do believe that it should go to a vote. This is America and we all are not required to feel the same about issues. calling others names for having opposing views is not an intelligible move. I think the mayors of San Francisco and the other cities need to keep away and mind their own business. For god's sake San Francisco harbors criminals that are here illegally. It is to bad this has even become a current event with all the other things going on.

Edited March 30, 2016 by caterpillar2
add a sentence.