# Oops! NCâs Anti-LGBT Law Also Hurts Veterans



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"Two jurisdictions in North Carolina â Greensboro and Orange County â had ordinances in place that barred job discrimination against vets. These types of protections trace back to the Vietnam War, when vets couldnât get work as a result of their military service. In more recent years, veteransâ advocates have raised concerns about Iraq and Afghanistan War vets being turned away from jobs because of employersâ fears, unfounded as they may be, that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and would be emotionally unstable on the job.

McCrory eliminated those two local ordinances for veterans when he signed HB 2. The law also ensures that cities and counties canât pass these kinds of protections going forward."

Does _this_ part of HB2 bother anyone?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...r=WorldPost&section=us_world&utm_hp_ref=world


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nope.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Not understanding the connection.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

What I think is that if Obama and the DHS had not labeled returning vets as "potentiol terrorists" the whole thing pro'by wouldn't be an issue anyhow.

"the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks"

https://americaswatchtower.com/2009...ng-us-veterans-as-potential-terrorist-threat/

You can't have it both ways......Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Not understanding the connection.


If HB2 is found to be constitutional, veterans can be discriminated against as well as transgenders. It will nullify anti discrimination laws put in place to help vets because many employers thought they were mentally unstable.

Is that OK with you?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

no really said:


> Not understanding the connection.


Me either. I just read the whole bill too. All 5 pages of it and did not see it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The justification and spin on this makes me sick. There's low, and then there is snake ^&% low. 

As long as it stops LGBT to hell with the vets, right? :facepalm:


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

That merry go round ride I predicted would start up again '' yesterday'' just did .:facepalm:


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> The justification and spin on this makes me sick. There's low, and then there is snake ^&% low.
> 
> As long as it stops LGBT to hell with the vets, right? :facepalm:


No Pixie I am trying to find out what they are talking about. 

page 4

_(a) It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of 24 all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on 25 account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers 26 which regularly employ 15 or more employees. 27 (b) It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and 28 discriminating in the terms of employment foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the State 29 of the fullest utilization of its capacities for advancement and development, and substantially and 30 adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general._ 

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf

I also see no discrimination against anything other than "biological" sex. So how will lesbians be affected by this or gays? 

I cant comment either way without a better informed understanding of what they are talking about. They saw something I have not seen yet *or* they are grabbing at straws for effect and publicity.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> That merry go round ride I predicted would start up again '' yesterday'' just did .:facepalm:


It's not the same ride. The "family values" crowd has just thrown American veterans under the bus. Who's next?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> Me either. I just read the whole bill too. All 5 pages of it and did not see it.


Read through it again still not seeing it..


----------



## moonrabbit (Apr 1, 2016)

Putting 2 unrelated things into one bill: would bother me.

Not being specific and explicit when drafting legislation: would bother me.

Banning men from the ladies room: still reasonable.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> No Pixie I am trying to find out what they are talking about.
> 
> page 4
> 
> ...


It blocks all anti discrimination (including local) law in the state of North Carolina. Greensboro and Orange counties had anti discrimination laws on the books for veterans. If HB2 passes they are gone, and the entire state is barred from enacting _any_ type of anti discrimination law.


----------



## moonrabbit (Apr 1, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> It blocks all anti discrimination (including local) law in the state of North Carolina. Greensboro and Orange counties had anti discrimination laws on the books for veterans. If HB2 passes they are gone, and the entire state is barred from enacting _any_ type of anti discrimination law.


If they hadn't listed out the different qualifiers and left it ambiguous then maybe but they did and military service isn't there.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> It blocks all anti discrimination (including local) law in the state of North Carolina. Greensboro and Orange counties had anti discrimination laws on the books for veterans. If HB2 passes they are gone, and the entire state is barred from enacting _any_ type of anti discrimination law.


Yes but since PTSD is a handicap wouldn't that be covered in this bill? What am I missing?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Me either. I just read the whole bill too. All 5 pages of it and did not see it.


 Nope I didn't see it. Sounds like ONE PERSON is trying to read into things WAY MORE then is necessary. Hmmmm Agenda driven maybe? Sure it is, can't be anything else.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

arabian knight said:


> Nope I didn't see it. Sounds like ONE PERSON is trying to read into things WAY MORE then is necessary. Hmmmm Agenda driven maybe? Sure it is, can't be anything else.


Actually it was eight persons. All congresscritters too so I am a little skeptical as usual. No matter the colors they fly blue or red. 


http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/VetsHB2.pdf


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

moonrabbit said:


> If they hadn't listed out the different qualifiers and left it ambiguous then maybe but they did and military service isn't there.


I'm sure you are right and all the legal experts are wrong. 

"Does HB2 affect rights of people who aren&#8217;t gay or transgender?

Yes. The law limits how people pursue claims of discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, biological sex or handicap in state courts. The law also means a city or county cannot set a minimum wage standard for private employers."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article68401147.html

"Representative Grier Martin (D-34) proposed an amendment that would have added &#8220;*veteran status*, sexual orientation and gender status,&#8221; but it *failed to pass*."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkr...protections-from-discrimination/#73dfd2e33296

"Critics of the law, which also prohibits local governments from setting minimum wages above the state level and strips veterans of anti-discrimination protections, vowed to fight back in the court of public opinion as well as investigate legal remedies."

"Some political observers noted that the state legislation, which deprives local municipalities of control over their own laws, seemed antithetical to conservative values. &#8220;This doesn&#8217;t seem conservative to me,&#8221; said Mac McCorkle, a former Democratic consultant and an associate professor of public policy at Duke University. &#8220;This seems authoritarian.&#8221;

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/north-carolina-law-antidiscrimination-pat-mccrory.html?_r=0


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Yes but since PTSD is a handicap wouldn't that be covered in this bill? What am I missing?


Not at the state level. There is protection under federal law but it's expensive and time consuming for any case of discrimination at that level. My first link contains details. 

"Thereâs still a federal law that bans discrimination against military vets. But if youâre an Iraq War vet who lives in Greensboro and you think youâre being turned away from jobs because of your military background, you canât seek a remedy at the state level anymore. Youâd have to go through the federal system, which costs more and is more complicated."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Nope I didn't see it. Sounds like ONE PERSON is trying to read into things WAY MORE then is necessary. Hmmmm Agenda driven maybe? Sure it is, can't be anything else.


It prevents any local Govt other than the state from passing *anti*-discrimination laws.

That means the laws protecting veterans can no longer apply.

It also means if a veteran believes they were turned down for a job due to their status as a veteran, they can no longer file a complaint in the *state* courts, but will have to take the case to a Federal court.


----------



## moonrabbit (Apr 1, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> "Does HB2 affect rights of people who arenât gay or transgender?


The question is: does it affect veterans on the sole basis of being veterans and no I do not see where it does.




Irish Pixie said:


> "Representative Grier Martin (D-34) proposed an amendment that would have added â*veteran status*, sexual orientation and gender status,â but it *failed to pass*."


Funny how he bundled those three unrelated things together, I'm sure that had nothing to do with why it failed to pass.



Irish Pixie said:


> "Critics of the law, which also prohibits local governments from setting minimum wages above the state level and strips veterans of anti-discrimination protections


Again I've seen no evidence of that unless they are perhaps trans veterans?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not at the state level. There is protection under federal law but it's expensive and time consuming for any case of discrimination at that level. My first link contains details.
> 
> "Thereâs still a federal law that bans discrimination against military vets. But if youâre an Iraq War vet who lives in Greensboro and you think youâre being turned away from jobs because of your military background, you canât seek a remedy at the state level anymore. Youâd have to go through the federal system, which costs more and is more complicated."


Yes, I understood that too but isn't that the way its always been? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has always been the go to guy right? There are EEOC offices in nearly every city here in Texas. Here if you go to state and they drink coffee and sit on it then transfer it to federal anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Sigh. The quote regarding the amendment was to point out that all anti discrimination laws would be void in the state of North Carolina if HB2 is found to be constitutional including veterans.

It affects veterans because there were anti discrimination laws in some counties of North Carolina. If passed, they will be void.

I'm sorry you don't, or won't, understand. Perhaps if you read the information again?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It prevents any local Govt other than the state from passing *anti*-discrimination laws.
> 
> That means the laws protecting veterans can no longer apply.
> 
> It also means if a veteran believes they were turned down for a job due to their status as a veteran, they can no longer file a complaint in the *state* courts, but will have to take the case to a Federal court.


Not so


The _Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration shall have the 41 authority to receive charges of discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity 42 Commission pursuant to an agreement under Section 709(b) of Public Law 88-352, as amended by 43 Public Law 92-261, and investigate and conciliate charges of discrimination_


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Yes, I understood that too but isn't that the way its always been? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has always been the go to guy right? There are EEOC offices in nearly every city here in Texas. Here if you go to state and they drink coffee and sit on it then transfer it to federal anyway.


No, not in some cities and counties in North Carolina. There are cities and counties that have anti discrimination laws and if violated the person could go to the state for the grievance to be heard, which is easier and cheaper than federal.

If found constitutional there will be no _future_ anti discrimination law either.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, not in some cities and counties in North Carolina. There are cities and counties that have anti discrimination laws and if violated the person could go to the state for the grievance to be heard, which is easier and cheaper than federal.
> 
> If found constitutional there will be no _future_ anti discrimination law either.


Well the good news is that its still just a bill. Maybe it will once its re-written. If it is to be.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Well the good news is that its still just a bill. Maybe it will once its re-written. If it is to be.


Do you really think it will be found constitutional?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really think it will be found constitutional?


I think cooler heads may prevail with all the hype its getting and it will be changed. Even the link I had showed revisions from the first draft.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow, this is ridiculous - Can anyone point out the specific wording or is this another one of those "well, if you hold it under the light and turn it just this way you can see that it spells out "satan loves obama""


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I find it pretty funny (not really) that it has been the left all the way from Viet Nam forward who has been sptting on vets, calling them baby killers, naming them as "potentiol terrorists" (Obama administrzation), killing them through lack of medical care with long waiting lists at the VA, otherwise obviously looking upon them as expendables, who now think they might be "handy" in an effort to let men invade the women's rest room.

I certainly never met anyone on the right who would deny a job to a vet because they are afraid he might come unglued at work. Obviously, the fears of a left-leaning mind, written down for all to see by the DHS.

Vets who don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace should avoid liberals, not the carolinas.....Joe


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, not in some cities and counties in North Carolina. There are cities and counties that have anti discrimination laws and if violated the person could go to the state for the grievance to be heard, which is easier and cheaper than federal.
> 
> If found constitutional there will be no _future_ anti discrimination law either.


How can a city or county ordinance be heard on the state level? Around here these are heard at either the city court, or county court.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> How can a city or county ordinance be heard on the state level? Around here these are heard at either the city court, or county court.


Maybe it's different in other states? Or it starts at the local level and moves to state? I dunno. The information I read (and linked) stated that if HB2 is made into law the only recourse will be federal for vets that have been discriminated against.

Why don't you look into it and let us know what your research turns up?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> I find it pretty funny (not really) that it has been the left all the way from Viet Nam forward who has been sptting on vets, calling them baby killers, naming them as "potentiol terrorists" (Obama administrzation), killing them through lack of medical care with long waiting lists at the VA, otherwise obviously looking upon them as expendables, who now think they might be "handy" in an effort to let men invade the women's rest room.
> 
> I certainly never met anyone on the right who would deny a job to a vet because they are afraid he might come unglued at work. Obviously, the fears of a left-leaning mind, written down for all to see by the DHS.
> 
> Vets who don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace should avoid liberals, not the carolinas.....Joe


Wow, that's a broad brush and ugly generalization. I've never, nor do I know anyone, that has ever spit on a vet for any reason. Two of the people I love most in this world are vets. 

Justification for throwing vets under the bus in your prior post? 

People and businesses are already avoiding North Carolina.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> *Not so*
> 
> 
> The _Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration shall have the 41 authority to receive charges of discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity 42 Commission pursuant to an agreement under Section 709(b) of Public Law 88-352, as amended by 43 Public Law 92-261, and investigate and conciliate charges of discrimination_


So:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=NC+hb...ttps=1&redig=21276FF648C14B2C96D1DFA1AB69FF20

http://mywncattorney.com/nc-hb2-law-law-discriminates-gender-identification/



> But while the public&#8217;s and media attention was focused on the transgender debate, the legislators inserted additional language into the bill. This insert stripped all workers in discrimination cases from enforcing state anti-discrimination laws. This change to the Equal Employment Practices Act reads as follows:
> 
> &#8220;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.&#8221;
> 
> What this change means for workers is that they cannot use their own state *courts *to enforce state law even when they are discriminated against for illegal reasons. For example, if a religious minority worker who was fired solely because of his religion, *he could no longer sue his employer in N.C. courts*.


The "Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration" is not a "court".


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Maybe it's different in other states? Or it starts at the local level and moves to state? I dunno. The information I read (and linked) stated that if HB2 is made into law the only recourse will be federal for vets that have been discriminated against.
> 
> Why don't you look into it and let us know what your research turns up?


And maybe this is just more hype, except this time it's from the left!

Historically this country has dumped on its veterans as soon as it's done with them. Not sure why anyone is surprised they are still doing it. 

I'm still more about what's being hidden with this stuff, than any actual discrimination going on, it's already been agreed that these folks have been using the restroom they identify with for years, as far as locker rooms if I was a school I would be more concerned about unfair advantage from a male identifying as female playing against me.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

joebill said:


> I find it pretty funny (not really) that it has been the left all the way from Viet Nam forward who has been sptting on vets, calling them baby killers, naming them as "potentiol terrorists" (Obama administrzation), killing them through lack of medical care with long waiting lists at the VA, otherwise obviously looking upon them as expendables, who now think they might be "handy" in an effort to let men invade the women's rest room.
> 
> I certainly never met anyone on the right who would deny a job to a vet because they are afraid he might come unglued at work. Obviously, the fears of a left-leaning mind, written down for all to see by the DHS.
> 
> Vets who don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace should avoid liberals, not the carolinas.....Joe


Nothing personal but all this has been going since after the revolutionary war, maybe not the spitting g etc. but definitely government reneging on promises made.

It's never been left or right, just a fact of life, give a couple of parades, but if it costs money forget about it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> And maybe this is just more hype, except this time it's from the left!
> 
> Historically this country has dumped on its veterans as soon as it's done with them. Not sure why anyone is surprised they are still doing it.
> 
> I'm still more about what's being hidden with this stuff, than any actual discrimination going on, it's already been agreed that these folks have been using the restroom they identify with for years, as far as locker rooms if I was a school I would be more concerned about unfair advantage from a male identifying as female playing against me.


If LGBT and veterans can be discriminated against so blatantly, who is next? What is being hidden is worrisome as well, I agree.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So:
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=NC+hb...ttps=1&redig=21276FF648C14B2C96D1DFA1AB69FF20
> 
> http://mywncattorney.com/nc-hb2-law-law-discriminates-gender-identification/
> ...



This is the way the law is now even before the bill has passed. 


http://www.workplacefairness.org/file_NC

_Unlike most other states, North Carolina's state administrative agency does not process claims under the state anti-discrimination law.

In order to file a claim, you will need to contact your closest local Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 
_


It seems most cases end in federal court anyway. I do think it is wrong that the option is taken away though.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> If LGBT and veterans can be discriminated against so blatantly, who is next? What is being hidden is worrisome as well, I agree.


Whoever they want, why is that so befuddling? Our government hasn't been responsive to its citizens basically in forever.

With such wide-ranging beliefs and needs, how can a government give you what you want without taking something from someone else?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> Whoever they want, why is that so befuddling? Our government hasn't been responsive to its citizens basically in forever.
> 
> With such wide-ranging beliefs and needs, how can a government give you what you want without taking something from someone else?


So we just give up? 

I believe that all Americans should be treated equally, there are people that won't do that and that is why we have anti discrimination laws via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ongoing ligation for LGBT rights. All Americans have rights, not just some Americans, and some rights.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> People and businesses are already avoiding North Carolina.


Do you think it is right that people and businesses avoid NC because they disagree with NC's law which assigns bathrooms based on science?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So we just give up?
> 
> I believe that all Americans should be treated equally, there are people that won't do that and that is why we have anti discrimination laws via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ongoing ligation for LGBT rights. All Americans have rights, not just some Americans, and some rights.


And you think a law is going to change people, and rights only work if you don't tramp on someone else's to give special rights to another.

Just because someone was denied rights in the past is no reason to give special rights now.

The idea of this country was that everyone is equal, but we have been so swept up in atrocities of the past that we think we need to pay for that in the future. The civil rights act was a pretty good start until they went to adding to it for votes.

Educating citizens to their rights and responsibilities is the only way we are going to make everyone equal, forcing peop,e to accept changes that in their mind don't make any sense is not going to work out very well in my humble opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

DEKE01 said:


> Do you think it is right that people and businesses avoid NC because they disagree with NC's law which assigns bathrooms based on science?


I think it's up to the individual or business. Just as it's their option to leave the state if HB2 is made into law.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it's up to the individual or business. Just as it's their option to leave the state if HB2 is made into law.


Or to move there! I moved my business from California to Arizona because California is far to liberal and hates businesses unless you donate mass money to democrats. I still have a home there so I can vote!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> *And you think a law is going to change people, and rights only work if you don't tramp on someone else's to give special rights to another.*
> 
> Just because someone was denied rights in the past is no reason to give special rights now.
> 
> ...


Don't tell me what I think, it's crude and boorish. 

Question, do you think that only some Americans have the rights due them under the Constitution? *I think* that all Americans have rights, not just some Americans, and some rights.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

An additional note, the sever ability clause in section 4. Most legislation contains that and what it means is IF a portion of said law is declared invalid in the courts, the rest of the law remains intact.
So, IF a veteran has a discrimination issue, and I doubt it considering the respect they get here, they will likely prevail and the bathrooms being the main issue will remain.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

There's more. I glanced through the Wage and Hour Act of the bill, became curious (it's a blessing and a curse) and found this:

"Part 2 of the law, which reworks the stateâs âWage and Hour Act,â prevents any local government, whether city, town, or county, from regulating wage levels, hours of labor, or benefits of private employers. Here is the pertinent language:

"The provisions of this Article supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to compensation of employees, such as the wage levels of employees, hours of labor, payment of earned wages, benefits, leave, or well-being of minors in the workforce."

A local government still can control benefits and compensation of its own employees, although it cannot place any requirements on contractors it uses to carry out work. In the past, according to the sections struck, a local government could place requirements on a contractor so long as it could have imposed the same requirements on all its employees."

Do all of you _still_ like this bill?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it's up to the individual or business. Just as it's their option to leave the state if HB2 is made into law.


That is NOT what you have said in the past. One would think a principled position would not change merely because the shoe is on the other foot. 

You have consistently supported the gov't in enforcing that a cake baker loses his rights to deny service based on his moral principles. Shouldn't Bruce Springsteen and the NBA be forced to honor their contracts in NC with fines, threat of imprisonment, and being run out of business due to their discrimination against the people of NC?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> This is the way the law is now even before the bill has passed.
> 
> http://www.workplacefairness.org/file_NC
> 
> ...


One more time, North Carolina's "state administrative agency" is not a "*court*" and does not handle "*civil suits*".

I'm not sure why you think they are the same thing.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't tell me what I think, it's crude and boorish.
> 
> Question, do you think that only some Americans have the rights due them under the Constitution? *I think* that all Americans have rights, not just some Americans, and some rights.


Opinions vary.

Depends on what you consider a right and a privilege. Using public facilities could safely be said to be privilege not a right.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

DEKE01 said:


> That is NOT what you have said in the past. One would think a principled position would not change merely because the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> You have consistently supported the gov't in enforcing that a cake baker loses his rights to deny service based on his moral principles. Shouldn't Bruce Springsteen and the NBA be forced to honor their contracts in NC with fines, threat of imprisonment, and being run out of business due to their discrimination against the people of NC?


The cake baker(s) have lost lawsuits based on discrimination, what they have done is illegal. Totally different than using one's free will (or a business) to boycott or leave a state that doesn't support their view. All individuals and businesses have the right to do that. 

What do Mr. Springsteen's and the NBA's contracts state? Can they be enforced? I don't know, do you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> That is NOT what you have said in the past. One would think a principled position would not change merely because the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> You have consistently supported the gov't in enforcing that *a cake baker loses his rights to deny service based on his moral principles.* Shouldn't Bruce Springsteen and the NBA be forced to honor their contracts in NC with fines, threat of imprisonment, and being run out of business due to their discrimination against the people of NC?


The "cake baker" never had the right to pick and choose among customers based on "morals". They must all be treated the same.

Performers may have to pay some contractual penalties, but that's legal, unlike discrimination.

It remains to be seen if they will be "run out of business".
I personally doubt it will make any difference at all in their bottom lines


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One more time, North Carolina's "state administrative agency" is not a "*court*" and does not handle "*civil suits*".
> 
> I'm not sure why you think they are the same thing.


I swear, even when I agree with you you have some smart alec comment to add. 

ONE more time, I was agreeing with you dude. I am starting to wonder about your reading comprehension. Maybe you should get to a Dr.

Really. 

Not even sure why you would talk to someone whom _you_ consider a bigot anyway. Not that you will ever acknowledge being wrong....


Like I did in my previous post to you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> Opinions vary.
> 
> Depends on what you consider a right and a privilege. Using public facilities could safely be said to be privilege not a right.


Or it's personal liberty (which all LGBT lawsuits have used so far including gay marriage) and the 14th Amendment. We'll find out soon. 

And you didn't state an opinion, you told me I thought and you were wrong.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

IMHO this whole bathroom drama is a game, a contest, just an us against them. It doesn't seem to have any benefits other than making a people uncomfortable. Maybe the people, the activists should find a hobby or get a real job. Meet people outside their protected bubble of thought.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it's personal liberty (which all LGBT lawsuits have used so far including gay marriage) and the 14th Amendment. We'll find out soon.
> 
> And you didn't state an opinion, you told me I thought and you were wrong.


Personal liberty is pretty vague, and could be extended to include anyone goes in any bathroom. I mean it's my personal liberty I hit the one with the shortest line right.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> Personal liberty is pretty vague, and could be extended to include anyone goes in any bathroom. I mean it's my personal liberty I hit the one with the shortest line right.


That's an opinion.  The courts didn't think it was vague when they ruled in favor of Obergefell v. Hodges, Glenn v. Brumby, Grimm v. Gloucester Country School Board as a violation of personal liberty per the 14th Amendment.

:shrug: Like I said, we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I swear, even when I agree with you you have some smart alec comment to add.
> 
> ONE more time, *I was agreeing with you dude*. I am starting to wonder about your reading comprehension. Maybe you should get to a Dr.
> 
> ...


That was hardly clear from what you posted aside from the last sentence.

You mentioned the "state administrative agency" twice when I've only been talking about "courts"

I'm still not sure why you mentioned them.
If that's "smart alec", I can't help it.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's an opinion.  The courts didn't think it was vague when they ruled in favor of Obergefell v. Hodges, Glenn v. Brumby, Grimm v. Gloucester Country School Board as a violation of personal liberty per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> :shrug: Like I said, we'll find out soon enough.


All of those are opnions. The court opined that the law said this and thus.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was hardly clear from what you posted aside from the last sentence.
> 
> You mentioned the "state administrative agency" twice when I've only been talking about "courts"
> 
> ...


Just loo,ingredients but it looks like most EEOC claims are handled administratively, not involving courts.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> All of those are opnions. The court opined that the law said this and thus.


And this is not over with what is it 11 or 14 States have joined in a LAWSUIT. To Challenged this BS that Obama has perpetrated upon the citizens of the United States. So it WILL be headed to the SC. LOL


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

no really said:


> IMHO this whole bathroom drama is a game, a contest, just an us against them. It doesn't seem to have any benefits other than making a people uncomfortable. Maybe the people, the activists should find a hobby or get a real job. Meet people outside their protected bubble of thought.


For goodness sakes, what is your I.Q.?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> All of those are opnions. The court opined that the law said this and thus.


Exactly, the court gave it's legal opinion that LBGT cannot be discriminated against in the cases I referenced. Who's opinion enforces or denies law?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was hardly clear from what you posted aside from the last sentence.
> 
> You mentioned the "state administrative agency" twice when I've only been talking about "courts"
> 
> ...


Its simple Bear. The state admin agency is one of two ways to handle an employment claim in NC. from what I have read so far. The EEOC is the other. It cant go to courts unless it has been vetted by one or the other or the chance of failure goes up to the extreme. In any case it will have to touch on or the other of those agencies to get a ruling anyway. 

My first post was from the bill itself. I even said I may not be getting all the gist of bill several times. My second post was from the state admin website to get an understanding of what is the process and why. This is the way it is today before the bill gets passed. If it does. I understand that it has to have a public vote in November. 

Most do end up in the Fed court anyway but I disagree with the state option being left out. 

Still, even under this bill, everyone gets a chance to have their day in court for being discriminated against. Just not in the state courts. 

If I was TG I would rather it went to the Fed court in that state with the powers that be there anyway.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

elevenpoint said:


> For goodness sakes, what is your I.Q.?


I don't know why? You taking some sort of census?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Just loo,ingredients but it looks like most* EEOC claims *are handled administratively, not involving courts.


I never said anything about EEOC claims.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly, the court gave it's legal opinion that LBGT cannot be discriminated against in the cases I referenced. Who's opinion enforces or denies law?


Still opinion and opinions change. You called to account my opinion and threw someone else's opinion in as to why mines wrong.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said anything about EEOC claims.


Doesn't all this fall under EEOC?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> Still opinion and opinions change. You called to account my opinion and threw someone else's opinion in as to why mines wrong.


Isn't that what happens when there is a discussion and disagreement?  Your opinion and my thoughts don't mean squat, the court will decide.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Interesting that so many think it's fine to discriminate FOR vets but not AGAINST them. 
Remember when you give someone special status you discriminate against all others.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> Doesn't all this fall under EEOC?


No. Only the second half of the bill has anything to do with employment. I brought that up a little while ago, BFF didn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Its simple Bear. The state admin agency is one of two ways to handle an employment claim in NC. from what I have read so far. The EEOC is the other. It cant go to courts unless it has been vetted by one or the other or the chance of failure goes up to the extreme. In any case it will have to touch on or the other of those agencies to get a ruling anyway.
> 
> My first post was from the bill itself. I even said I may not be getting all the gist of bill several times. My second post was from the state admin website to get an understanding of what is the process and why. This is the way it is today before the bill gets passed. If it does. I understand that it has to have a public vote in November.
> 
> ...


Again you go on and on about state agencies and the EEOC when I mentioned nothing other than *civil suits* and *state courts*

It's like farmrbrown's bringing up Oregon law while quoting something I said in reference to NC law...pointless and irrelevant


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Doesn't all this fall under EEOC?


No, civil suits do not


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

no really said:


> I don't know why? You taking some sort of census?


No, I was complimenting you on a sensible post.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

elevenpoint said:


> No, I was complimenting you on a sensible post.



Sorry, took it wrong. That is the problem with not speaking face to face. :buds:

Especially in this part of the forum.. eep:


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not at the state level. There is protection under federal law but it's expensive and time consuming for any case of discrimination at that level. My first link contains details.
> 
> "Thereâs still a federal law that bans discrimination against military vets. But if youâre an Iraq War vet who lives in Greensboro and you think youâre being turned away from jobs because of your military background, you canât seek a remedy at the state level anymore. Youâd have to go through the federal system, which costs more and is more complicated."


Being very "up" on Veteran Affairs, I can tell you there are MUCH simpler avenues for seeking a remedy. I'm a vet, I work in one of the places mentioned in the OP. This thread is full of slanted misinformation, mostly by two members. 

Once again, IP, I hope you arrive safely and in good time. Seth


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> Being very "up" on Veteran Affairs, I can tell you there are MUCH simpler avenues for seeking a remedy. I'm a vet, I work in one of the places mentioned in the OP. This thread is full of slanted misinformation, mostly by two members.
> 
> Once again, IP, I hope you arrive safely and in good time. Seth


Do you mean now or if the bill becomes law? I was detailing what was said in the bill, which is not law, and not in force right now. Can you explain? 

What does your last sentence mean? It's the second time that you've said it to me.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

When I see posts that claim "this law will do this" I wait for the one that says "this person wants to do that, because he voted for......"

Rarely do the bills do what the opponents claim, and even more rarely do they do what the PROponents claim.

It's occurred to me that we spend a great deal of our time reading what turn out to be either very marginal truths that don't matter a whit or downright lies intended to confuse the issues.

Aside from that, the freshly introduced bill will, of course, be the subject of a 6 handed game of ping pong between the houses of congress before, if ever, it comes to a vote in either house, and propbably will not in any way resemble itself if it ever DOES come to vote.

Does all this seem strange? Not at all, in view of the fact that as long as we are talking about silly stuff like this, we are not talking about, or paying any attention to, the fact that we are around 150 trillion dollars in the hole and spending faster every day. If I were responsable for that, I'd want to give the folks I am responsible TO, plenty of other silly stuff to talk about, like what percentage of female impersonators can make it into the ladies room without detection.

Don't let me bother anybody, though......Joe


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> "Two jurisdictions in North Carolina â Greensboro and Orange County â had ordinances in place that barred job discrimination against vets. These types of protections trace back to the Vietnam War, when vets couldnât get work as a result of their military service. In more recent years, veteransâ advocates have raised concerns about Iraq and Afghanistan War vets being turned away from jobs because of employersâ fears, unfounded as they may be, that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and would be emotionally unstable on the job.
> 
> McCrory eliminated those two local ordinances for veterans when he signed HB 2. The law also ensures that cities and counties canât pass these kinds of protections going forward."
> 
> ...


I thought you didn't play "What if" games...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again you go on and on about state agencies and the EEOC when I mentioned nothing other than *civil suits* and *state courts*
> 
> It's like farmrbrown's bringing up Oregon law while quoting something I said in reference to NC law...pointless and irrelevant


Your right. Don't know what I was thinking to agree with you. 

I am wrong. I admit it. 

You can be right again even though we agree. I will be wrong. 

It doesn't mean that much to me, I am just trying to find the truth without bias is all. You do your thingy. 

Soooo how's the weather? Been raining here like a blooming hair I tell ya.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Seth said:


> Being very "up" on Veteran Affairs, I can tell you there are MUCH simpler avenues for seeking a remedy. I'm a vet, I work in one of the places mentioned in the OP. *This thread is full of slanted misinformation, mostly by two members. *
> 
> Once again, IP, I hope you arrive safely and in good time. Seth


Why not show your facts to refute the "misinformation"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Your right. Don't know what I was thinking to agree with you.
> 
> I am wrong. I admit it.
> 
> ...


The truth is the bill stops *civil suits in state courts* for employee discrimination cases. 

It makes no difference if you "agree with me" or not, since the law won't change either way


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not show your facts to refute the "misinformation"



Because I don't argue with fools. If someone needs the real information, I will help them find it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> Because I don't argue with fools. If someone needs the real information, I will help them find it.


Which "real" information? Current law, or the bill I outlined in my prior post? Vets in North Carolina have recourse at the state level now, and I'm sure that information is easily found. What we are discussing is the ramifications of the NC HB2 bill becoming law.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not show your facts to refute the "misinformation"


It's much easier to call people fools and blindly state someone is wrong than to prove it.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which "real" information? Current law, or the bill I outlined in my prior post? Vets in North Carolina have recourse at the state level now, and I'm sure that information is easily found. What we are discussing is the ramifications of the NC HB2 bill becoming law.





Very well, then, how will NC HB2 becoming law affect you?



How much farther on your trip?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> Very well, then, how will NC HB2 becoming law affect you?
> 
> How much farther on your trip?


Diversion, how typical.  

And I'll assume, unless you'd like to enlighten me, that the "trip" reference is a wannabe insult. And also typical.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

'Take A Trip, And Never Leave The Farm'. Good one.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Diversion, how typical.
> 
> And I'll assume, unless you'd like to enlighten me, that the "trip" reference is a wannabe insult. And also typical.


Seth might be referencing your AC/DC quote under your pic ???


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Diversion, how typical.
> 
> And I'll assume, unless you'd like to enlighten me, that the "trip" reference is a wannabe insult. And also typical.


Not answering a direct, relevant question. The trip references what is posted just under your user name. Hop you get there quickly. Seth


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

TripleD said:


> Seth might be referencing your AC/DC quote under your pic ???





Winner winner chicken dinner.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Seth said:


> Because I don't argue with fools. If someone needs the real information, *I will help them find it*.


Wouldn't showing your "real information" be helpful?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> Seth might be referencing your AC/DC quote under your pic ???


Thank you for pointing that out. 

And I was right about the wannabe insult.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> Winner winner chicken dinner.


They do say that imitation is the most sincere from of flattery. Ah shucks, I'm blushing at your use of one of my favorite sayings. Does this mean we're buddies? Or just more wannabe insult?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Seth said:


> Not answering a direct, relevant question. The trip references what is posted just under your user name. Hop you get there quickly. Seth


You're not the first one to tell others to go to hell just because you don't like their opinions. It says more about you than them


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Anything that prevents government from forcing business to hire (or, keeping them from no hiring) certain people just because of reason "X", is a good thing.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Seth said:


> Very well, then, how will NC HB2 becoming law affect you?
> 
> 
> 
> How much farther on your trip?


Aren't you the guy who said a certain group of people were going to Hell? You must have a real good connection with God. Might want to check your reception; the part about "love" and "not being spiteful" obviously failed to come through.


----------

