With a Supreme Court ruling, unfortunately that will be after Millions of tax dollars are spent defending this silly HB2 law and millions (possibly billions) of investment dollars are lost due to the stupid bill being implemented.
That might be another of the "common sense" proposals by the legislature to protect the wimmen and chillens from aliens pretending to be humans ....
PayPal/Bruce Springsteen make their choices based upon their beliefs of sexual preference identification and chooses not to do business in North Carolina but chooses to do business in more gender open/neutral areas. A small business owner who chooses not to make a certain style of cake is demonized, sued and the end result oftentimes is that they can't afford the fine and have to close their business. Based upon Bruce Springsteen/PayPal standards, those small businesses described above should be able to sue for lost revenue for being wrongly treated and or at the bare minimum have the option to refuse service with impunity.
If the small business chooses to be a bigot as you defined it above, I really have no sympathy for them and question why they thought they could serve the public in the first place.
Because if YOU think it's bigotry it is? You libs act more freeking childish each and every day. Throwing fits to get what you want because you know what's best. Yeah..................
The medical science is not exactly a "belief" so this fails due to a flawed premise. Because discrimination is illegal under the US legal code. So they should be allowed to discriminate because you believe it is correct to do so? You have no medical science or legal precedent to support your position, but they have both to support their views.
It could be said that PayPal and Springsteen are being bigots buy punishing fans and what would have been future employees because of their beliefs. My intent is not to offend anyone and I am sure there will be some who disagree but I do not believe the intent of the HB2 bill was/is to discriminate against LGBT people as much as it is to shield the vast majority of the population of North Carolina (heterosexual people) from the LGBT/Transgender standards which more often than not seems to be pushed by a 'militant like' minority. I do not think that a small percentage of the LGBT community should receive special treatment at the expense of the general public. I do not believe the majority of Women want a Man in the restroom with them or their daughters. If my comment makes me 'intolerant' in the eyes of some of you then so be it.
Actually that is what the Federal Code says .... Not allowing you to ignore the federal law is childish? OK.
Anything can be said, but this does not have an logical support. How does stripping EVERY person in the state of their ability to bring suit in state court for discrimination a "protection" against the "militant like minoriry"? How does removing the ability of cities to determine a higher minimum wage than the state based on higher costs of living protect the "heterosexual North Carolinians"? Not wanting to be attacked in a restroom because they are perceived as not fitting in is a "special treatment"? As is the case with most of the "common sense" legislations here, there is nothing to support this fear other than the fear mongering itself. These are not "men" or "women" which are being targeted but a wide spectrum of transitory points between the two ends.
Some information on what the stages are and how significant the transition is. http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/surgeries-procedures/stages-of-gender-reassignment.htm http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/Witnessing.pdf http://www.genitalsurgerybelgrade.com/ftm_surgery_detail.php?Phalloplasty/2
Sure is. We're just Allowing you to follow state law. Fortunatly, we still have states rights at this point in history , no matter how hard you libs kick and scream and cry to be dictators.
You should either read more or read more accurate sources because the State Constitution links to the US Constitution, which gives primacy to federal law when a state law is in conflict with it no matter how much you may scream and cry to be dictators. Article VI Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Given it is a Civil Rights issue, it is unrelated to the specific criminal statutes. As a criminal statute the federal law applies to federal agents and state laws apply to state enforcement. Yes, and if charged by federal law enforcement agents it will be under the Federal statutes. If charged by state or local law enforcement the appropriate statutes will apply. If there were a statute enacted that prevented the state or local from being any less stringent than the federal statutes this would change.
Just a week ago - http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016...ressed-woman-busted-videoing-womens-bathroom/
If you want to stick with State laws only then make sure those States don't ask for a dime of Federal money, when needed. See how long that will last. Sherry
