Bruce Springsteen cancels show

[NOIRTRASH]

Not unless the 14th amendment is going to go away as well.

LOL good luck getting 1950 back!!

You didn't get the memo. SCOTUS changes its mind, occasionally. One of these days the Jew/Catholic lezzies on the court will be gone, and America will suffer a closet shortage.

 

[Real_American11]

...fascist laws.

Using the proper public restroom is fascism?

It shouldn't need a law, who's raising this freaks that they don't use the proper restrooms on their own?

 

[BotanyBoy]

You didn't get the memo. SCOTUS changes its mind, occasionally. One of these days the Jew/Catholic lezzies on the court will be gone, and America will suffer a closet shortage.

Keep dreaming about that theocracy LOL

Jesus is going to get rid of that pesky Roe v. Wade any day now too!!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Using the proper public restroom is fascism?

It shouldn't need a law, who's raising this freaks that they don't use the proper restrooms on their own?

It's indicative of the utter intellectual collapse of the Republican party when the main topic of debate in conservative circles is proper restroom usage.

#WideStance
#FocusOnTheFamilyPhallus

 

[Real_American11]

It's indicative of the utter intellectual collapse of the Republican party when the main topic of debate in conservative circles is proper restroom usage.

Possible, but why are so many people using the wrong restroom that caused the politicians to even address it?

 

[oggbashan]

Possible, but why are so many people using the wrong restroom that caused the politicians to even address it?

You do know that the other purpose of the law is to allow employers, including the state to discriminate against LGBT people, don't you?

That is far more significant than restrooms.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Possible, but why are so many people using the wrong restroom that caused the politicians to even address it?

The short answer is, there are NO people "using the wrong restroom".

It's a "solution" in search of a "problem" (see also: Voter fraud, welfare queens, etc).

It's just the reactionary conservative whackadoodle right looking for someone to demonize. They've lost on blacks, Hispanics, gays and single women, so transgender seems to be all they have left.

#BoogeymanDuJour

 

[Hypoxia]

It's just the reactionary conservative whackadoodle right looking for someone to demonize. They've lost on blacks, Hispanics, gays and single women, so transgender seems to be all they have left.

#BoogeymanDuJour

They can still go after dwarves. And clowns. Especially dwarf clowns, the kind that make toddlers scream with terror. And ferret owners. Only pervs own ferrets. I knew some.

Why can't they target Scientologists?

 

[sr71plt]

Why can't they target Scientologists?

Or folks who can't do anything but spew hate and anger on the Internet.

 

[RobDownSouth]

They can still go after dwarves.

They can't go after dwarves, they only target people not like themselves, you know, #ThosePeople.

Most conservatives are "vertically challenged". Dwarfism hits them a little too close to home (pun intended).

 

[Real_American11]

You do know that the other purpose of the law is to allow employers, including the state to discriminate against LGBT people, don't you?

How is people using the proper restroom discriminatory?

The short answer is, there are NO people "using the wrong restroom".

Well if women are using men's rooms or men are using women's rooms... then they are in the wrong room.

It's a "solution" in search of a "problem" (see also: Voter fraud, welfare queens, etc).

Are you saying voter fraud and welfare abuse don't exist?

 

[oggbashan]

How is people using the proper restroom discriminatory?

...

Because restroom use is only PART of the legislation, you dumbass! It also removes protection from LGBT people from discrimination in employment.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

The mother fuckers usta come to the hospital and demand admission to the female ward. And I usta piss the world off when I put them on the male ward. Like I told one girly man, JOHN, I SEEN YOU IN THE SHOWER, AND YOU AINT A GIRL. He said, MY NAME AINT JOHN, ITS CHRISSIE!

When I trained to be a head shrinker Fritz Perls. MD was THE MAN, and his standards were simple. ITS ONE THING FOR ME TO WANT TO BE LIKE ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, AND ITS FUCKING PSYCHOTIC FOR ME TO SAY I'M ELEANOR ROOSEVELT.

Replace Eleanor with GIRL or NAPOLEON or EASTER BUNNY and you get the idea.

Chazz Bono aint never gonna be a boy.

If you believe girls are boys youre fuggin delusional.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

Because restroom use is only PART of the legislation, you dumbass! It also removes protection from LGBT people from discrimination in employment.

I view all "anti-discrimination" legislation as immoral, so to me N.C. has taken a step in the right direction.

A private company should be able to hire whoever they like without some jerkoff from the government getting in the way. If I want to start a business and only hire single, straight, beautiful women to work for me then I should fucking be able to. That is called freedom.

There is nothing untoward about this bill at all, and the controversy in the media is ridiculously disproportionate to the overall impact it will have. Again, priorities. Not enough people seem to have them.

 

[oggbashan]

...

A private company should be able to hire whoever they like without some jerkoff from the government getting in the way. If I want to start a business and only hire single, straight, beautiful women to work for me then I should fucking be able to. That is called freedom.

There is nothing untoward about this bill at all, and the controversy in the media is ridiculously disproportionate to the overall impact it will have. Again, priorities. Not enough people seem to have them.

That's freedom to exploit and victimise. Back in the 19th Century in the US and UK and still in parts of the world today children are employed instead of adults because they are cheaper. Health and Safety? Who cares if a child is killed by machinery? There are more kids out there.

Employers who are totally free to employ who they like and set the conditions of work unilaterally are totally free to screw workers by paying as little as possible.

How far should employment legislation go? That's another argument, but this NC legislation is trying to go back to the 1930s at least.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

That's freedom to exploit and victimise. Back in the 19th Century in the US and UK and still in parts of the world today children are employed instead of adults because they are cheaper. Health and Safety? Who cares if a child is killed by machinery? There are more kids out there.

What you are really afraid of is that in a world where there was no pressure whatsoever to employ this or that type of person equally, every business in America would start to become dominated by white men.

Employers who are totally free to employ who they like and set the conditions of work unilaterally are totally free to screw workers by paying as little as possible.

This is an incongruous argument coming from someone who supports immigration "reform", which would make it much, much harder for anybody in America to get a job.

How far should employment legislation go? That's another argument, but this NC legislation is trying to go back to the 1930s at least.

I am actually not an ideologue, everything I believe and support simply reflects what I feel will be best for myself and the people I care about. Thus I can support both a fixed minimum wage and the freedom to employ whoever you will.

If I was to place myself in the shoes of a business owner, I would be rather angry being told I had to hire this or that person because of some nonsense like what they chose to identify with, especially if they lacked any talents beyond cross-dressing.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I view all "anti-discrimination" legislation as immoral, so to me N.C. has taken a step in the right direction.

A private company should be able to hire whoever they like without some jerkoff from the government getting in the way. If I want to start a business and only hire single, straight, beautiful women to work for me then I should fucking be able to. That is called freedom.

There is nothing untoward about this bill at all, and the controversy in the media is ridiculously disproportionate to the overall impact it will have. Again, priorities. Not enough people seem to have them.

Working for government I noticed what happens over time. All middle managers became lesbians, supervisors became bisexual women, clerks became black women, support staff became latina females, and the dangerous work went to males. As a guy I saw the patterns and used them to my advantage; promotion was impossible due to the sexual biases, but I accrued immense influence as a gladiator. No one wanted my job but my services were in demand.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTj...xn_ala7y2Hy5Wp2kLFB1CJqZO5zUK_qUpQ-hwe7fZXYAA

JBJ DEFEATS THE LESBIAN ANIMALS

 

[oggbashan]

I am actually not an ideologue, everything I believe and support simply reflects what I feel will be best for myself and the people I care about. Thus I can support both a fixed minimum wage and the freedom to employ whoever you will.

If I was to place myself in the shoes of a business owner, I would be rather angry being told I had to hire this or that person because of some nonsense like what they chose to identify with, especially if they lacked any talents beyond cross-dressing.

I don't support quotas or special treatment. I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity based on ability, not on race, colour, religion or sexual preference - the best person for the job.

But historically employers haven't chosen 'the best'. They have applied their own preferences and rejected the best because their face didn't fit.

In the past in the UK the only mandatory preference was disabled veterans of WW1. They had to be considered before all other applicants, but even they had to be competent to do the work after small workplace adjustments - tax-deductable costs. That effectively had ended by 1939.

 

[Real_American11]

That's freedom to exploit and victimise.

Wrong, it's American Liberty.

Back in the 19th Century in the US and UK and still in parts of the world today children are employed instead of adults because they are cheaper.

Children should e able to work, stopping children from working means less income for poor families.

If a poor family with a father in a low paying job or a single mother needs extra income they could send their child to get a job. Also, working is good for children.

People today act and are treated like children legally and socially well into their 20s and even 30s. 200 years ago a 12 year old boy was already a man, he had a job or his own plot of land to farm, he likely had a wife. Now that same 12 year old boy will grow-up into a 35 year old "man" living in his parents basement screaming over X-Box Live and having his mother wipe Cheetos crumbs off his chin.

Health and Safety? Who cares if a child is killed by machinery? There are more kids out there.

The free market took care of workplace safety, look at the chart that shows before and after OSHA is created, the line stays the same.

Employers who are totally free to employ who they like and set the conditions of work unilaterally are totally free to screw workers by paying as little as possible.

You are paid what you are worth, if you aren't paid much it's because you are worth much.

Also, if there wasn't a minimum wage at low skill jobs it would allow the employer to give more raises to the good workers. All minimum wage is is communism, it makes the hard workers get punished and the lazy workers get rewarded.

How far should employment legislation go? That's another argument, but this NC legislation is trying to go back to the 1930s at least.

If I own a home, nobody tells me who I have to let inside. If I own a car, nobody tells me who to let inside.

But when I own a store, restaurant, etc. every sack of shit and their mother thinks they can tell me who to let inside.

I don't support quotas or special treatment. I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity based on ability, not on race, colour, religion or sexual preference - the best person for the job.

But it is abused by government and by people.

Even without quotas, if you have a system in place that expects diversity, what happens when there isn't any? Even if all the hiring decisions where based solely on merit? What if no blacks apply to work at a company? What happens when some group sues them or the government starts investigating them and decides to take it to court?

But historically employers haven't chosen 'the best'. They have applied their own preferences and rejected the best because their face didn't fit.

That is an outright lie!

Some employers have made hiring decisions based on things you'd call racism, sexism, etc. and still do today. But businesses exist to make MONEY, hiring the best people is how you make money. The better your people, the better your product or service, the more money you can charge to the customer.

In the past in the UK the only mandatory preference was disabled veterans of WW1. They had to be considered before all other applicants, but even they had to be competent to do the work after small workplace adjustments - tax-deductable costs. That effectively had ended by 1939.

Are you comparing being an injured veteran to being black or gay?

Veterans get that treatment because they EARNED it, blacks and gays didn't earn a damn thing from simply being black or gay.

 

[sr71plt]

Ringo Starr and also Cirque du soleil have now canceled NC shows.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)
If I own a home, nobody tells me who I have to let inside. If I own a car, nobody tells me who to let inside.

If you want to rent out your home or let people hire your car, you will face anti-discrimination regulations.

 

[oggbashan]

...

In the past in the UK the only mandatory preference was disabled veterans of WW1. They had to be considered before all other applicants, but even they had to be competent to do the work after small workplace adjustments - tax-deductable costs. That effectively had ended by 1939.

Are you comparing being an injured veteran to being black or gay?

Veterans get that treatment because they EARNED it, blacks and gays didn't earn a damn thing from simply being black or gay.

No. I'm not. I said ONLY disabled veterans used to get preferential treatment.

Everyone else is treated equally in the UK, not UNequally. Being black, white, male, female, of one religion or another - it doesn't matter. You and your lawyers can try to prove that you were not treated equally but YOU have to prove your case, not the employer.

Some employees are incompetent assholes. If the employer can show that was the reason for firing the person, not that they were black or a woman, then the fired employee has to prove that they weren't 'incompetent'.

Some employers are also incompetent assholes. They can lose at an employment tribunal because they didn't follow employment law when firing someone - but if they lose it was because the employer was incompetent or badly advised.

 

[Real_American11]

If you want to rent out your home or let people hire your car, you will face anti-discrimination regulations.

So you are saying discriminating when accepting customers is the same as when hiring employees?

Either way, those laws are immoral and un-American.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Either way, those laws are immoral and un-American.

But they are the laws enacted in your country. Live with them or emigrate.

A strict Muslim nation would seem appropriate for someone with your views. You could stone adulterers and gays, cut the hands off thieves, and treat your women with contempt.