|
MasterSlowPoke posted:I think he means that in 2014, the total votes for all representatives was 52% D, but resulted in an R supermajority. Correct, I'm talking about the state government, who are the ones relevant to this discussion. Though it is right that McCrory suckered in people by presenting himself as a centrist. Can't tell you how many people I know voted for him because "Well he seems like a middle of the road sensible fella! He worked with Democrats as mayor of Charlotte!" Sorry if I seem like I'm venting, because I am. It just feels like my states' been taken over by the forces of Immortan Joe only without all the cool cars.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
galagazombie posted:Correct, I'm talking about the state government, who are the ones relevant to this discussion. Though it is right that McCrory suckered in people by presenting himself as a centrist. Can't tell you how many people I know voted for him because "Well he seems like a middle of the road sensible fella! He worked with Democrats as mayor of Charlotte!" Sorry if I seem like I'm venting, because I am. It just feels like my states' been taken over by the forces of Immortan Joe only without all the cool cars. Same playbook as Synder in Michigan then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
I'm not sure how the law works when it comes to mandating the size of toilet facilities with respect to the average number of customers, but there must be some basic measure. Or else you'd have stores getting rid of public toilets all together in favour of revenue generating store area. Or night clubs with just a single toilet for a thousand patrons. As I see it, to ensure they're compliant with the law and not likely to be sued, businesses have three basic option: - pull out their toilets completely - have one toilet for everyone. - have multiple single person facilities built like, say, an aeroplane toilet. Every single option is going to make people angry and cost the business lots of money. God I hate people like this so much, it's not just the obvious things, like their bigotry, it's how loving petty they are. And vindictive. They'd set themselves on fire if they thought the flame it might spread to someone they didn't like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Even dumber was admitting to making out with a middle schooler on an Internet forum I'm sending a link to the FBI one day i'll learn how to phrase things properly >_<
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:They'd set themselves on fire if they thought the flame it might spread to someone they didn't like. Except when you call them out on it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
rscott posted:Same playbook as Synder in Michigan then. Same exact thing Kaisch is trying to position himself for if he can somehow get the nomination or even a VP spot on the GOP's ticket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I'm not sure how the law works when it comes to mandating the size of toilet facilities with respect to the average number of customers, but there must be some basic measure. Or else you'd have stores getting rid of public toilets all together in favour of revenue generating store area. Or night clubs with just a single toilet for a thousand patrons. I'm guessing that with large stores it's just that they have to have a bathroom for employees anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
What's getting me about bathroom chat is how many people are involved who've never had a bad experience with bathrooms or known anyone who has having super-strong views on the subject. like, i care because it's been an issue for me in the past and i have a fair number of trans-masculine and butch lesbo friends who've been policed out of the lady's room by busybodies. nobody's been arrested or anything, but that's probably because we just do bathroom stuff in there like normal people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:What's getting me about bathroom chat is how many people are involved who've never had a bad experience with bathrooms or known anyone who has having super-strong views on the subject. It's "how do I marginalize people that I/my constituents think are icky since I can't make being gay illegal anymore". NC plumbing codes (pdf) use these 2009 international standards as a base if I'm reading things right. Nightclubs with one stall are almost certainly in violation but I doubt anyone cares to enforce it since that would take time and money and the state seems disinclined to spend either on things that might help the public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I think transgender issues are going to have to perk for a little longer before they get any legal traction. It's just not on enough people's radar. I don't see how the bathroom accommodations issue could possibly fail rational basis, since the purported purpose is creation of safe spaces for an at-risk group (women in this case). Unless you want to argue that that's not a legitimate government interest, I'm not seeing a way around it? In other news, I really really hope that the courts won't be able to dodge making sexual orientation and gender identity suspect classes this time around. I mean, "long history of targeted discriminating legislation" is supposed to be the whole loving point of suspect class designation! Maybe this will finally be the start of bringing trans* rights to the national stage? E: Is there any way to shoot down the rational basis argument without also getting rid of state-mandated provision of sex-based bathrooms? Stickman fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I don't see how the bathroom accommodations issue could possibly fail rational basis, since the purported purpose is creation of safe spaces for an at-risk group (women in this case). Unless you want to argue that that's not a legitimate government interest, I'm not seeing a way around it? Among other things, there have been 0 cases of the thing they're purportedly defending against happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Among other things, there have been 0 cases of the thing they're purportedly defending against happening. Absolutely true, but my understanding is that that doesn't factor into a rational basis decision. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but rational basis doesn't require evidence that the law actually does what it says it does, just that it is hypothetically related to a legitimate government interest. It's a very low bar, which is why it would be a big win if sexual orientation and gender identity were declared suspect classes. That would bump review of laws like this up to strict scrutiny and hopefully head off stupid poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Absolutely true, but my understanding is that that doesn't factor into a rational basis decision. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but rational basis doesn't require evidence that the law actually does what it says it does, just that it is hypothetically related to a legitimate government interest. It's a very low bar, which is why it would be a big win if sexual orientation and gender identity were declared suspect classes. That would bump review of laws like this up to strict scrutiny and hopefully head off stupid poo poo like this. The lack of the thing ever occurring would be a pretty big thing for the plaintiff against the law to swing in their favor. Rational basis is no ironclad defense for a government passing bad laws that cause harm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The lack of the thing ever occurring would be a pretty big thing for the plaintiff against the law to swing in their favor. Rational basis is no ironclad defense for a government passing bad laws that cause harm. No it's not, but joat moat was specifically asking for thoughts on the rational basis for the bathroom accommodation law. VVVV Same with cis women (by %)! VVVV Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Among other things, there have been 0 cases of the thing they're purportedly defending against happening. Fun fact: more U.S. Senators have been arrested for misconduct in restrooms than transgender individuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
God Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in a absolutely beautiful reply to the asshats in Tennessee and Georgia . http://us12.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4103fb81b8a6f015cc0f0a507&id=5cffe1f6f4 tl;dr, the guys in charge of Freemasonry in Tennessee and Georgia decided to make being gay a masonic offense, the type that gets you kicked out. loving Belgium's Grand Lodge, and the Grand Lodges of California and DC immediately responded with what amounts to gently caress yous, and it looks like Massachusetts followed suit Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The lack of the thing ever occurring would be a pretty big thing for the plaintiff against the law to swing in their favor. Rational basis is no ironclad defense for a government passing bad laws that cause harm. No, that's completely irrelevant in a rational basis test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Kilo147 posted:God I had an English professor who was a Freemason (or atleast claimed to be. He had the ring, but you can buy those on Amazon). He was a pretty nice guy, and definitely not homophobic, but I imagine a club full of old white guys is probably going to mostly reflect typical old white guy views, especially in the south.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Georgia tried to go after the companies that are threating to boycot Georga http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/3/25/georgia-tries-and-fails-target-boycotting-companies Phone posting so I can't copy the article, but basically if a company follows nondescrimination policies that go beyond state and federal law, and an employee or customer feels that they aren't living up to those policies, then the company can be sued. Side note, are there better news sites than the advocate for LGBT news?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Roy Cooper, the AG of North Carolina, is opposed to the bill for what it's worth. Roy Cooper is a Democrat and running for McCrory's seat in November. If he loses the Democratic bench is super thin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Georgia tried to go after the companies that are threating to boycot Georga http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/3/25/georgia-tries-and-fails-target-boycotting-companies If this passed, could ANYONE just start accusing their own company for not rooting out 'the gays'?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:If this passed, could ANYONE just start accusing their own company for not rooting out 'the gays'? Read that again, it's the opposite
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
They essentially wanted to make it more expensive to have a policy of not allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation because you would get sued for not being perfect in applying it. Thus encouraging them to drop that policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Uhhhh, can't you already be sued for failing to apply your own nondiscrimination policy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
It's so people can sue for their employer not respecting their "religious views".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:It's so people can sue for their employer not respecting their "religious views". So they're setting up a catch-22 for the companies, whose only "out" will be to dismantle anti-discrimination practices to accommodate people who believe their primary culture is discrimination, otherwise they would be discriminating against people who seek only to discriminate? Someone light the  signal
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Luckily the courts are not as eager to pass off rank homophobia as "religious views" as these GOP state legislators are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Kilo147 posted:God Its still okay to poo poo on atheists though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:So they're setting up a catch-22 for the companies, whose only "out" will be to dismantle anti-discrimination practices to accommodate people who believe their primary culture is discrimination, otherwise they would be discriminating against people who seek only to discriminate? I have no idea what they were going for. If a company is planning to leave the state if you pass certain legislation (which means that they're likely drawing up plans in advance), why would you pass additional legislation as a giant middle finger? Wouldn't that just get them to leave even faster?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I have no idea what they were going for. If a company is planning to leave the state if you pass certain legislation (which means that they're likely drawing up plans in advance), why would you pass additional legislation as a giant middle finger? Wouldn't that just get them to leave even faster? Because this is identity-politics, not outcome-politics. And at least a few of them are worried about supernatural punishment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Because this is identity-politics, not outcome-politics. And at least a few of them are worried about supernatural punishment. This is truer than you think. A lot of evangelicals are going scorched Earth to collect Jesus Points because they are SUPER CONVINCED that the rapture is coming any day now. Just like cold fusion is always 20 years away, the rapture is always next week
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
The only sadistic wish I sometimes want whenever I read up on how evangelicals literally want to destroy the world is seeing their face right when they die, and realize for one brief fraction of a second, rapture is not coming. Then I'm just reminded they'll rationalize that they have done all they can to prevent bad things and it makes me want to go back to the cute pictures thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Yeah having grown up in the bible belt with fundamentalist family members and being told that I literally was possessed by a demon for saying I was queer by a relative I can assure you that they legitimately believe that Jesus Christ is going to come like a thief in the night. So imagine people who have the legitimate belief and mindframe that any moment Jesus Christ is going to snatch them up into Heaven.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I have no idea what they were going for. If a company is planning to leave the state if you pass certain legislation (which means that they're likely drawing up plans in advance), why would you pass additional legislation as a giant middle finger? Wouldn't that just get them to leave even faster? Pretty sure that's what they're going for, really; their response is going to be "didn't want that business anyway." Which is really funny when you consider that the same states doing this tend to be of the "we'll cut taxes and give favorable legislation to coax businesses here" variety. Now they're deliberately driving businesses and people out. Granted the voters in Republican states generally want to get rid of all the gays anyway so they probably figure some of them will go with them when said companies leave. They are really, truly, and genuinely that hostile toward anything gay, liberal, or "not like us."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
I haven't been back in awhile but my parents live near Atlanta and I grew up there. I'm honestly interested in what the reaction to this is from the northern suburbs because I'm not so sure they're anti-gay than they are pro-money. Also GA lawmakers doubling down on the crazy in response to the companies giving them a warning shot is NOT what I expected
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I haven't been back in awhile but my parents live near Atlanta and I grew up there. I'm honestly interested in what the reaction to this is from the northern suburbs because I'm not so sure they're anti-gay than they are pro-money. I'll let you in on a secret... Ready for it? You might want to sit down. All those things the Republican state governments said they were going to do to attract business and get jobs were never about doing either of those things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'll let you in on a secret... Seems like it was a sincere impulse in LA, not that that's a ringing endorsement. Anyway it wouldn't be about attracting jobs, it's about KEEPING them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Side note, are there better news sites than the advocate for LGBT news? Metro Weekly is based in DC. Windy City Times is in Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/lawsuit_against_north_carolina_filed_in_federal_court_over_sweeping_anti_lgbt_law Lawsuit filed, they specifically call out the Legislature for: 1. Holding a special session specifically to pass this and 2. For not only doing that, but passing the Bill and then making it law in the same day quote:“By singling out LGBT people for disfavored treatment and explicitly writing discrimination against transgender people into state law, H.B. 2 violates the most basic guarantees of equal treatment and the U.S. Constitution,” the 45-page lawsuit charges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/lawsuit_against_north_carolina_filed_in_federal_court_over_sweeping_anti_lgbt_law I'm glad they're pouncing on this with a lawsuit relatively quickly. This kind of nonsense needs to be nipped in the bud.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:06
|
|