You probably think the Mississippi Bill was all about Freedoms too.

Those "urbane idiots" are not just in Charlotte. Try Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and Greensboro - where Springsteen was suppose to play last night but cancelled in protest to HB2. Not unlike what his sidekick and lead guitarist of nearly half a century Steven Van Zandt did in the early 1980s when he led a boycott of Sun City in protest of apartheid in South Africa. Nearly four decades later and we're still disagreeing over equal rights in this country.

Heck, I'll bet we might have one or two of those NC "urbane idiots" as members of BA.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/11/congressman-...

The supporters of at least two of the republican candidates will raise holy hell over this at the same time they'll use their power and position to block a supreme court nomination. You can't have it both ways folks.

As far as the Bill's language,there's nothing in there that even hints at allowing discrimination.
It doesn't speak to it.

Plus,as I said,any discrimination would violate Federal Law.


Also,my post never raised an issue of "safety" as it pertains to transgender individuals using bathrooms or locker rooms for other then their biological "plumbing".

As I said,unisex bathrooms address the bathroom issue.

The problem with locker rooms is that people are saying a transgender individual has the right to feel "comfortable", even if other people aren't.

No OCF - The purpose of this bill was not solely to prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect. Yes, I have read the bill and, as a member of the NC Tourism community, am intimately involved in the "wordsmithing" taking place in Raleigh to try to massage the PR and commerce nightmare.

For you to simply drop in a "If the bill inadvertently did more than that..." tells me you know exactly what the bill did and why. For everyone else, I will explain - so as to provide the truth - both as someone who lives in Charlotte, and also as someone who spends most of my professional time in rural NC - working with the "hicks" as you so comfortably call them.

The reality is that NC is a "right to work state" - which in the legal world means you can fire someone for pretty much any reason. Now the state has had laws on the books to protect may groups - based on sex, race, etc. - and those conditions are reaffirmed in the Bill Part III. However, the section specifically, and knowingly, leaves out sexual-orientation. A condition that the Charlotte City Council had included. So the result of the bill is indeed that you can still be fired because of your sexual-orientation (RP - unfortunately not having defined, means it is not protected). And since Section III addresses "accommodation" the lack of protection against discrimination extends to not only right of employment, but also right of service. Meaning you can not serve a same-sex couple because they are holding hands....of course, it was not too long ago that the same mentality (and law) applied to interracial couples.

Now there are two other condition of the Bill that further prove the intent of the bill was not solely to "prevent the infamous Charlotte restroom ordinance from going into effect." They are...

1). Section C of Part III - "...General Statutes 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..."

meaning no city or local government can provide employment protection to someone based on sexual-orientation - since the state legislature supersedes.

And of course

Part II - which has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, or bathroom facilities - but takes the opportunity to specifically not permit local governments from raising the minimum wage above the state level -- which of course makes perfect sense since our state is unique in that the the cost of living is the same no matter where you live....oh wait, that's not true. Man, I wonder how that part of the bill "inadvertently" got put in there?

So obviously, the bill did more than address the bathroom situation -- and it was not "inadvertent." I guess Raleigh owes us NC citizens a big "oops" for that huh?

The reality is City Council overstepped by incorporating the bathroom portion to be part of the Bill. Behind doors, republicans wanted that part in the city bill because it gave them the emotional element to fight the bill in Raleigh (it allows them to have the uninformed refer to HB2 as the "bathroom bill" when it goes well beyond that). Democrats (state and nationally) wanted it in because they felt it could be an angle to push for legal battles to take down the road.

If City Council had simply passed a bill that folded sexual-orientation into the non-discrimination classification, it would have passed here and even the "hicks" as you so fondly refer to my fellow citizens in rural NC would not have cared.

The other reality is the business and economic kickback has been pretty strong and consistent since HB2 was passed. It is impacting business, tourism, and a new initiative that I am helping to run point on which is to further solidify NC as a primary retirement state.

Consequently, I suspect that the "inadvertent" parts of the bill will be addressed, and the "bathroom bill" will be modified to become exactly, and solely just that - a narrow bill that addresses a local overstep. Both sides can then take credit for a "win" - which is the only way politics work this day.

The quotes have gotten a bit long so I'll just reply. I don't see two pages of folks supporting the bathroom thing. I for one am not a big fan of it and I am sure there are others that feel the same way. When I walk into an airport bathroom I expect to see other guys - period. As for CC's comments, that might be the most coherent post ever offered on this site and it certainly wasn't snarky. The governor of NC has already sent hundreds of teachers over the border to seek employment elsewhere. I'm afraid this bill will have a negative economic impact as well.

My post specifically notes that both ides saw a political reason to include the portion in the bill. The republicans because it would gin up the base, the Dems because they knew the Republicans would block it and such action would open up court case to be used to block other LGBT laws down the road (in state and out).

No tricks involved, no ruse - just party self interest...by both parties.

Yes, I think both parties would take the compromise, I have not met anyone that embraces the bathroom portion of the Charlotte law. Only the very zealot of the right want to deny LGBT protection in employment or services.

The financial impact on the state and the PR connection to Mississippi is not something the state (meaning Raleigh) wants. Additionally, as is happening in Georgia, large corporations carry incredible weight.

PS - If I came across as snarky it was strictly in response to me and my fellow citizens being labeled as urbane idiots and hicks and what I thought was a rather cavalier comment about "inadvertent" components of the bill...when they were clearly part of the bill and its implications.

Alan - don't get me started on the teacher situation...

OCF - fair enough - as long as I can include the group on the corner last weekend holding their bibles and bathroom signs as :urbane idiots as well.

Well then you have fallen for the propaganda. Like this bill being debated, RTW does allow the individual to opt out of union membership in a closed shop environment. It's all the other fun stuff that go with RTW legislation that makes it so much fun. But hey, it's what states are voting in.

I just Googled the author of the AOL piece.
I wouldn't call her exactly "objective".

This brings up an interesting question: I'm going on vacation to North Carolina twice this summer. In light of this controversy, what can you do for me discount or other perk-wise on my trip? I'm still going to either way, but if I can save some money due to all this, I'd definitely be on board.

RP, someone can always find bias, even in Passed Laws like Taft-Hartley, which clearly has the voice of labor over Big business. If you can't read what's out there on the subject (like the other poster claims he can't find) and can not find objective information, well then, in ones own mind they must not exist. And in today's society where we somehow label about all forms of media as biased in one way or another.

So long story short, you mistook my post on this. As the KEY line and you said it "how people on both sides interpret"


And if you'd read what I said, I clearly stated read the actual sources and decided for yourself, which is what you did by reading the Labor law and RTW laws themselves.

Since this thread started off about Governor Kasich and delved into the NC law, of course he had to bring it full-circle. His condemnation of these laws is very interesting.

I know earlier in the thread, the discussion was on his sincerity. It feels like he's speaking straight from the heart and is avoiding bombastic claims. I disagree with him on many social and fiscal issues, but I genuinely get the feeling that what he feels is because he thinks it's in the best interest of our country. I get the impression he could be a good leader. He doesn't seem to be looking to put on a show or grab headlines, he just wants to jumpstart many national discussions.

Similarly, on the topic of level-headedness and conversation-building, thank you CC Cat for your posts. I can honestly say that I learned a lot from your posts and felt that you did it without truly planting a stake in the ground. Are you the same one who once posted at length about branding? If so, I think I could read your writing everyday. You're quite thoughtful in your words and stop and make me think. Thanks for that.