House Bill 2

DSM Turbos said:
One reason people are fixating on it right now is how much "money" it is costing the state with a few companies not moving companies here and others halting hiring due to it. Hell even the NBA is threatening the all star game and Michael Jordan said he would move the hornets over it. I think without all that you wouldn't be hearing as much about it.

I am surprised though that the part about not being able to sue isn't getting more traction and talked about. McCory even said they should clarify that part as it is not the intent, but they haven't done anything about it yet. Suing in a federal court is so expensive people won't do it if they face normal discrimination.
Click to expand...


Yes, whatever will we do without the 400 middle class jobs that Paypal was planning to add, and the concert revenue from Bruce Springsteen and Boston? Talk about having NC by the short and curlys!!! I had actually heard that Springsteen was planning to cancel Greensboro because of low ticket sales anyway, but blaming HB2 looked a lot less dickish. Don't take my word on that, though. Just something I heard. I actually would have had an easier time believing it myself if it were Boston cancelling due to low ticket sales. I think I have Third Stage on cassette somewhere around here.

Has anyone looked into the "costs" involved if HB2 is in fact overturned and the liberal right gets their way and we have to convert EVERY public restroom across the state into a unisex facility? Even the sheer cost of just changing every bathroom sign into some kinda cross-dresser thing:

as_media_cache_ak0.pinimg.com_236x_6b_66_76_6b66765f42ea9d20a7469107ea77b460.jpg


That's assuming this is the only cost associated. "Whichever" bathrooms will most likely not allow urinals because THAT would be discriminatory to those that cannot use them, so those will have to be replaced with stalls. It's staggering the amount that this will cost state-wide (and then country-wide, because you KNOW Obama

ai2.cdn.turner.com_cnnnext_dam_assets_150626213815_rainbow_white_house_large_169.jpg


will be quick to roll that sucker out). Who pays for all this? The business, who will in turn pass the cost to the consumer.
 
ManglerYJ said:
Has anyone looked into the "costs" involved if HB2 is in fact overturned and the liberal right gets their way and we have to convert EVERY public restroom across the state into a unisex facility? Even the sheer cost of just changing every bathroom sign into some kinda cross-dresser thing
Click to expand...

What has to change with any of the bathrooms if HB2 was overturned? Nothing, they stay just like they were before the law was enacted. In fact, private businesses right now don't have to listen to the bathroom part of the law, it cost them nothing to stay as they were.
 
DSM Turbos said:
What has to change with any of the bathrooms if HB2 was overturned? Nothing
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not a damn thing.

Liberals? Brainwashed and don't know it?

Years ago I learned a lesson. Don't pick up the shitty end of the stick. NC picked up the shitty end of the stick, and won't put it down...
 
ManglerYJ said:
That's assuming this is the only cost associated. "Whichever" bathrooms will most likely not allow urinals because THAT would be discriminatory to those that cannot use them, so those will have to be replaced with stalls. It's staggering the amount that this will cost state-wide (and then country-wide, because you KNOW Obama

will be quick to roll that sucker out). Who pays for all this? The business, who will in turn pass the cost to the consumer.
Click to expand...

The real staggering part is how much the republicans that are anti big government are going to cost the tax payers trying to fight this law. They aren't going to win this one.
 
Reid said:
i wanna point out NC is a right to fire state. i can fire someone because i dont like them. i dont have to give the reason i dont like them.

in essence, there wasnt any real protection from discrimination to start with.
Click to expand...

Not true, technically it is called employment at will also. Employment at will is still protected from race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information (there are a couple other things but those are the main ones). EEOC is a federal law - Overview (however you have to have 15 employees or more to be covered by EEO laws). You can fire them because you don't like them, you can't fire them because they are black, white, etc.

Stupid business school making me remember all of this crap.
 
if i dont like them because they are race XXXXX, and i fire them because i dont like them....i have discriminated against them without actually breaking the law or legally violating anyones rights...under the old NC set up.

its up to the offended to prove i violated their rights. again....working in a bar, ive seen a few lawsuits based on this and it is/was a hard thing to prove without video/audio evidence of the employer saying im firing your for being race XXXX
 
Reid said:
if i dont like them because they are race XXXXX, and i fire them because i dont like them....i have discriminated against them without actually breaking the law or legally violating anyones rights...under the old NC set up.

its up to the offended to prove i violated their rights. again....working in a bar, ive seen a few lawsuits based on this and it is/was a hard thing to prove without video/audio evidence of the employer saying im firing your for being race XXXX
Click to expand...

Better not say anything to anybody ever about it. I could show you actual cases that the same thing happened and the company has lost big. It isn't about saying you are firing them for them being a race but it is the evidence about how they were treated during their employment that leads to all of this and also makes their case. People have tried what you said and failed. Me personally, I wouldn't risk it.
 
Last edited:
NC is a right to work state (like the man said)

You say no reason....you don't get sued. You just get a call from unemployment. You give a reason....Gloria Allred comes calling
 
After reading HB2 and the initial Charlotte Ordinance that got the whole thing started, it's pretty obvious to me that 99.9% of the hysteria over this thing is all based on assumption. (myself included). There is so much misinformation about both that it's not even funny.

I think the part that scares me is the vagueness of the term "sexual identity" and the protection of it. With my "sexual identity" protected as a non-discriminatory characteristic, can I "identify" as a male dog and piss on a fire hydrant? Can I identify as a woman today and a man tomorrow because today I'm at the mall and the women's restroom is closer and cleaner, but tomorrow I'll be at the ball game and there is no line in the men's room?
 
Last edited:
sawdoff said:
I put rights in quotation marks because the issues pushed by the gay/lesbian community are not what I understand or consider our civil rights to be. If they would use a term such as "personal agenda" (notice the use of the "marks) I would not need the marks or maybe an asterisk.


What they do at their home is their right but the rest of society should not be forced to view it. Im not judging before you put me in some catagory. I have the right to choose what I believe, stand up for my beliefs, not force my beliefs on others, and to raise a family in those beliefs until such time as they are mature enough to decide for themselves their beliefs.
Click to expand...

I know exactly why you put it in quotes, hence my comment. But what you think/want/feel/understand a persons rights to be has little bearing on what the government says a persons rights are. People feel rather adamantly that the public should not have the right to own firearms, but as we all know that is a right protected by the laws of this country, specifically the second amendment of the constitution. Right now a LGBT persons rights are a not clearly defined, but I have a feeling they will be soon enough.

As for forcing society to view it, a man dressed as a woman, woman dressed as a man, two men kissing or two women kissing, or whatever in public isn't forcing anything on anyone any more so than you wearing a Justin Bieber t shirt forces your bad taste in music on anyone. They have a right to be in public just like you have, and you have a right to leave public just like they have.

Duane
 
CLRracer said:
As for forcing society to view it, a man dressed as a woman, woman dressed as a man, two men kissing or two women kissing, or whatever in public isn't forcing anything on anyone any more so than you wearing a Justin Bieber t shirt forces your bad taste in music on anyone. They have a right to be in public just like you have, and you have a right to leave public just like they have.

Duane
Click to expand...

But there are still certain societal norms that take precedence over these desires for "self expression" and violations can be punishable under the law or local ordinances. For example, while wearing a Justin Bieber shirt shows lack of taste, wearing a "FU©K Justin Bieber" shirt can get you thrown out of school, fired from your cushy job at Subway, kicked out of Disney and potentially arrested for profanity.

Societal norms have evolved over the years (thank goodness - nobody wants to see me in knickers or pantaloons), but there is still a call for modesty at some level.

Taking the argument to the ridiculous, if we really want to address this, the most logical sense of the situation would be to require bathroom use based on the way we were all born. Which requires total nudity. None of us were born clothed. Nudists had it right all along. Those of you who have had the misfortune to have seen me in real life know that this would be the WORST POSSIBLE idea.
 
Last edited:
ManglerYJ said:
But there are still certain societal norms that take precedence over these desires for "self expression" and violations can be punishable under the law or local ordinances. For example, while wearing a Justin Bieber shirt shows lack of taste, wearing a "FU©K Justin Bieber" shirt can get you thrown out of school, fired from your cushy job at Subway, kicked out of Disney and potentially arrested for profanity.

Societal norms have evolved over the years (thank goodness - nobody wants to see me in knickers or pantaloons), but there is still a call for modesty at some level.

Taking the argument to the ridiculous, if we really want to address this, the most logical sense of the situation would be to require bathroom use based on the way we were all born. Which requires total nudity. None of us were born clothed. Nudists had it right all along. Those of you who have had the misfortune to have seen me in real life know that this would be the WORST POSSIBLE idea.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with your examples are all private establishments, so they may not be the best. IMO, private establishments should have the right to run their establishment as they see fit. If society disagrees with it, their business will suffer.
 
ManglerYJ said:
But there are still certain societal norms that take precedence over these desires for "self expression" and violations can be punishable under the law or local ordinances. For example, while wearing a Justin Bieber shirt shows lack of taste, wearing a "FU©K Justin Bieber" shirt can get you thrown out of school, fired from your cushy job at Subway, kicked out of Disney and potentially arrested for profanity.

Societal norms have evolved over the years (thank goodness - nobody wants to see me in knickers or pantaloons), but there is still a call for modesty at some level.

Taking the argument to the ridiculous, if we really want to address this, the most logical sense of the situation would be to require bathroom use based on the way we were all born. Which requires total nudity. None of us were born clothed. Nudists had it right all along. Those of you who have had the misfortune to have seen me in real life know that this would be the worst POSSIBLE idea.
Click to expand...

If a societal norm has become law, then yes someone can be punished under it. But your example of the F Justin shirt and being fired or asked to leave both take place on private property where the owners can (or at least should) be able to do what they want. The school example is a good example of social norms creating ordinances, but it still can cause issues over whether an ordinance trumps a right (free speech vs rules against profanity) in a public setting. Getting arrested for profanity is a reaaaaaaaaal stretch there, but I have seen more stupid things happen. And yes, I agree 100% that there should be a call for modesty, but can/should there be a legal precedent/law for modesty? Who gets to set that up? What you and I deem modest are different. There are already indecent exposure laws, is that enough or should there be more? IMO the last thing we need are more laws telling us what we can and cannot do.

Duane
 
A liberal friend of mine engaged in a "discussion" on this a couple weeks ago:
Them - So what do you think about HB2?
Me - Well, I thi
Them - I can't believe they would be so hateful to people.
Me - Have you actually read the bill?
Them - No, but I've read a lot of articles and seen stuff on Facebook about it.
Me - We're done here.
Them - Don't you care?
Me - You haven't even read it. It's shorter than most of the articles you read, and most of the things you read about it are based on massive stretches and exaggerations. Read the damn thing first.
 
Well, I hadn't read the bill. Don't care all that much. My main concern would be locker rooms/showers/etc. Especially at school level. Any input on what the bill does or doesn't say about that? Or what the one the Charlotte council voted for said about that?

A male should not be allowed into a female locker room anywhere. I sincerely doubt the opposite would ever happen.
 
broncosbybart said:
Can we now market a new vanity license plate with 'NC- the hate state'

I'd consider getting one of those.
Click to expand...

I think "First in Hate" has a nicer ring to it, lol.
 
broncosbybart said:
A male should not be allowed into a female locker room anywhere. I sincerely doubt the opposite would ever happen.
Click to expand...


Judging by all the school sex cases, I believe there are as many female pervs as there are male.
 
Caver Dave said:
Female teachers preying on teenage nubbins don't count :D
Click to expand...

At least when WE had 3-somes with the hot student teachers from UNCG back in MY day we had the good sense to keep our damn mouths shut!
 
Back
Top