If you don't embrace change, you are racist and bigoted.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: intrptr

In the big city authority is given over to the power that runs things, in the small town, the people themselves still run things. They decide whats good for them or not, the way it should be.

Don't let the outsiders get a toe hold in your planning commissions or town councils. Keep it local.

So let's say a small town is 80% white and 20% black. Both the whites and the blacks were born and raised in this small town. The ancestors of the blacks have been there just as long as the ancestors of the whites. The white majority in this small town votes that the blacks should be considered inferior, therefore they can't vote in local elections, they can't own businesses, they can't shop in "whites only" retail establishments, and it won't be against the law any more to lynch a black person who refuses to follow said rules.

In my example, a small town just decided to do what was good for the majority of them. Is it still good for the majority to rule?

Was there already a federal law in place that superseded that?

Yes, and my example is exactly why we need federal laws in place to keep discrimination from happening, whether it's in a small town, or a whole state.

a reply to: theantediluvian

To be fair, the legislature did NOT take away the power of individual communities to have their own anti-discrimination ordinances.

Communities never had that power in North Carolina to begin with, as NC is not a home rule state.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: kaylaluv
You're describing endemic racism from the past where its existed already for a long time. The town divided against itself is ripe for outside controllers to exploit the division. Thats how the media does it on a national scale.

My post was directed to how its supposed to be, self reliant small communities as opposed to big cities.

How can you be for HB 2 and for "self reliant small communities" when one of the two biggest effects of HB 2 is that small communities have lost the ability to create ordinances that go beyond the state's anti-discrimination laws? Isn't that the opposite of what you're talking about?

a reply to: network dude

A group of people known to meet and have sex in public bathrooms are facing bathroom discrimination?

You must not care much about bigotry or racism if you cannot even be bothered to look them up in a dictionary before using those words.

originally posted by: Shamrock6


At the end of the day, I think it comes down to nothing more than one group stuck something they wanted in with a bunch of other stuff, and then the other group reacted by doing the exact same thing. It's all pretty pathetic.

agreed.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Is there a federal law against discrimination to date?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: intrptr

In the big city authority is given over to the power that runs things, in the small town, the people themselves still run things. They decide whats good for them or not, the way it should be.

Don't let the outsiders get a toe hold in your planning commissions or town councils. Keep it local.

So let's say a small town is 80% white and 20% black. Both the whites and the blacks were born and raised in this small town. The ancestors of the blacks have been there just as long as the ancestors of the whites. The white majority in this small town votes that the blacks should be considered inferior, therefore they can't vote in local elections, they can't own businesses, they can't shop in "whites only" retail establishments, and it won't be against the law any more to lynch a black person who refuses to follow said rules.

In my example, a small town just decided to do what was good for the majority of them. Is it still good for the majority to rule?

Was there already a federal law in place that superseded that?

Yes, and my example is exactly why we need federal laws in place to keep discrimination from happening, whether it's in a small town, or a whole state.

right. and that law already provides groundwork for legal action, should an individual feel discriminated against. Which then brings me to the big question........what is all the outrage over again?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Another HB2 rant that doesn't address the reality of HB2?

This rant has much less to do with HB2 and more to do with wanting to change something that neither wants, nor needs change. I am sorry if this upset you yet again. If you read the OP and my responses, you may get an idea for what I continually (to no avail) try to convey.

originally posted by: network dude



right. and that law already provides groundwork for legal action, should an individual feel discriminated against. Which then brings me to the big question........what is all the outrage over again?

Because if there isn't already a federal law that supercedes the NC one, then there should be - maybe THAT'S what the outrage is all about.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: theantediluvian

To be fair, the legislature did NOT take away the power of individual communities to have their own anti-discrimination ordinances.

Communities never had that power in North Carolina to begin with, as NC is not a home rule state.

That's not exactly accurate either. NC is NOT a Dillion's Rule state either. It has a sort of limited home rule established through broad enabling statutes.

§ 160A-174. General ordinance-making power. (a) A city may by ordinance define, prohibit, regulate, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions, detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the city, and may define and abate nuisances

That's why HB2 explicitly supersedes and preempts the following:

(b) The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the 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 that regulates or imposes any requirement pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation.

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. This subsection shall not apply to any of the following:

(c) The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the 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 that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law."

You might also want to read this.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: network dude



right. and that law already provides groundwork for legal action, should an individual feel discriminated against. Which then brings me to the big question........what is all the outrage over again?

Because if there isn't already a federal law that supercedes the NC one, then there should be - maybe THAT'S what the outrage is all about.

That's where I thought the federal law already provided for this. If it doesn't, then our problem isn't NC, it the whole US, and NC just pointed it out. You are welcome either way.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Literally none of that is news to me.

Municipalities in North Carolina have only the powers that the state allows them to have. There is no ability to govern a municipality however the municipality wants govern itself unless the state legislature has allowed them to do so and given them the power to do so.

So unless Charlotte and other cities were told, explicitly, they had the authority to go above and beyond the state law when it comes to both defining discrimination and telling people what bathroom they can and can't use, then that was never taken away from them. The Charlotte ordinance was challenged on a number of grounds ranging from the bathroom portion violating state law to violating state law in regards to labor and commerce.

I think you make some good points. I recently spent a couple weeks in the South for the first time. It was not NC so i understand there are surely some differences...anyways, i loved the south.

I loved the charm. And i loved the manners and overrall politeness i witnessed many places.

This coming from a liberal from a big city in Colorado. I would certainly trade many aspects of the people here with people down there. Some of the aspects, mind you.

I hope for a more balanced populace nationwide in the future. Itll happen. Takes time.

originally posted by: lightedhype
I think you make some good points. I recently spent a couple weeks in the South for the first time. It was not NC so i understand there are surely some differences...anyways, i loved the south.

I loved the charm. And i loved the manners and overrall politeness i witnessed many places.

This coming from a liberal from a big city in Colorado. I would certainly trade many aspects of the people here with people down there. Some of the aspects, mind you.

I hope for a more balanced populace nationwide in the future. Itll happen. Takes time.

WOOT! WOOT! I was able to get at least ONE person to comprehend my inane ramblings!

Thanks for restoring that tiny pocket of sanity I feared has been lost.

a reply to: theantediluvian

How can you be for HB 2 and for "self reliant small communities" when one of the two biggest effects of HB 2 is that small communities have lost the ability to create ordinances that go beyond the state's anti-discrimination laws? Isn't that the opposite of what you're talking about?

Not sure what HB 2 means…

the right of small communities to be right or wrong is better than the city where people have less (if any) power or control over the decision making process.

I'd much rather work for a small company than a large corporation, for the same reasons.

If I missed your point, please clarify.

a reply to: lightedhype

I hope for a more balanced populace nationwide in the future. Itll happen. Takes time.

What will happen over time is they will corral most everyone in the large population centers… they want that so its easer to control them more than rural folk.

They aren't as plugged in to the big city 'mores' (and payments). Rural folk own their own protperty more, are more independent and self reliant. The big cities make everyone more dependent on the system.

The damage is done regardless of the truth. Passing discriminatory laws will label NC as a bigoted, homophobic state and the repercussions from tourism and business will be profound.

www.cbsnews.com...

www.usnews.com...

You can't be pro business and anti gay at the same time.

You reap what you sow!

a reply to: Shamrock6

I understand what you're saying (municipal governments derive their authority through explicit grants by the state) but my argument is that the purpose of the general ordinance making statue is the broad enabling of ordinance making without the need for the General Assembly to explicitly empower the municipal governments for each and every possible ordinance.

For example, say Charlotte passed an ordinance establishing a $50 fine for a person not cleaning up his dog's poop from the sidewalk — this would be lawful because of the existing grant of authority from the general ordinance making statute.

I skimmed the enabling law here and this is what I found relevant:

"§ 160A-4. Broad construction. — It is the policy of the General Assembly that the cities of this State should have adequate authority to execute the powers, duties, privileges, and immunities conferred upon them by law. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter and of city charters shall be broadly construed and grants of power shall be construed to include any additional and supplementary powers that are reasonably necessary or expedient to carry them into execution and effect: Provided, that the exercise of such additional or supplementary powers shall not be contrary to State or federal law or to the public policy of this State.

"§ 160A-174. General ordinance-making power. — (a) A city may by ordinance define, prohibit, regulate, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the city, and may define and abate nuisances. (b) A city ordinance shall be consistent with the Constitution and laws of North Carolina and of the United States. An ordinance is not consistent with State or federal law when: (1) The ordinance infringes a liberty guaranteed to the people by the State or federal Constitution; (2) The ordinance makes unlawful an act, omission or condition which is expressly made lawful by State or federal law; (3) The ordinance makes lawful an act, omission, or condition which is expressly made unlawful by State or federal law; (4) The ordinance purports to regulate a subject that cities are expressly forbidden to regulate by State or federal law; (5) The ordinance purports to regulate a field for which a State or federal statute clearly shows a legislative intent to provide a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation. (6) The elements of an offense defined by a city ordinance are identical to the elements of an offense defined by State or federal law. The fact that a State or federal law, standing alone, makes a given act, omission, or condition unlawful shall not preclude city ordinances requiring a higher standard of conduct or condition.

"§ 160A-177. Enumeration not exclusive. — The enumeration in this Article or other portions of this Chapter of specific powers to regulate, restrict or prohibit acts, omissions, and conditions shall not be deemed to be exclusive or a limiting factor upon the general authority to adopt ordinances conferred on cities by G.S. 160A-174.

and also:

"§ 160A-194. Regulating and licensing businesses, trades, etc. — A city may by ordinance, subject to the general law of the State, regulate and license occupations, businesses, trades, professions, and forms of amusement or entertainment and prohibit those that may be inimical to the public health, welfare, safety, order, or convenience. In licensing trades, occupations, and professions, the city may, consistent with the general law of the State, require applicants for licenses to be examined and charge a reasonable fee therefor. Nothing in this section shall impair the city's power to levy privilege license taxes on occupations, businesses, trades, professions, and other activities pursuant to G.S. 160A-211.

I'm not saying that the ordinance would have stood up in court but the grant of authority is fairly broad.

a reply to: network dude

You make excellent points and this is exactly why the U.S. needs to break into smaller Republics. People can live more as they wish and we won't have the Federal Government killing and harming everyone in the world.

a reply to: olaru12

Although Tennessee and Arkansas have passed similar laws that prohibit local municipalities from passing local non-discrimination laws for gender and sex identity, “in an ordinary year it would have ended there,” she says. But in North Carolina, lawmakers apparently wanted to help boost McCrory, who’s up for re-election, and piggyback on a Virginia case in which a transgender boy sought municipal protection for his bathroom choice; the case currently before a federal appeals court. Oakley also pointed to South Dakota, a conservative state where the governor vetoed a similar conservative-backed bill that would have restricted transgender men and women from using the bathrooms of their choice. In that case, Gov. Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, said local municipalities, informed by their experts on the ground, should make that decision.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.