North Carolina Keeps Losing Events From HB2 (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Simple solution:

X Girl
X Boy
X Prince

Check one. Done.

I wanna be your brother
I wanna be your mother and your sister too

 

[dtc]

I find it funny that political liberals want to make films made by nonprofits that talk about a candidate illegal because of "corporate influence" but cheer this type of direct corporate influence on the political process.

You equate an ongoing business concern moving special events in response to political policies with a "charity" political organization making a propaganda movie targeting another politician?

 

[egautr1]

Where did this thread go to????

The law that was passed will only create more problems and issues than it is trying to solve. We have already seen the economic impact on the state of N.C. (thanks for giving us the all-star game, we can use the $!) with all the events and companies leaving.
But those are all just unintended consequences.

The law will create problems where there was no problem to begin with. I don't understand where the furor came from. Believe it or not, Trans people have been using your bathroom for years!!! You just didn't even know it. Gasp......

We have probably all used the RR with a trans person at some point in our lives, we just wouldn't even know it. So if there is a girl who identifies as a boy and looks/talks/dresses like a boy and uses the boys restroom and doesn't cause any problems. What is the issue?? And vice versa for girls.

Look if someone does something they are suppossed to do in there then take care of it. But as from what I can tell there is nearly zero evidence of trans people causing problems in RR's and locker rooms. There will only be problems if you force people who identify as the opposite sex to use the RR that they don't identify with.

This law will only create more problems as we have clearly already seen. But just keep burying your head in the sand N.C. and the gov. It is clearly working out great for your state and its citizens.

 

[JimEverett]

You equate an ongoing business concern moving special events in response to political policies with a "charity" political organization making a propaganda movie targeting another politician?

To the extent that both are expressive acts then yes - I do equate the two.

I take it that you don't, that you think that certain expressive acts should be made illegal based on the content of those acts?

 

[SaintJ]

I find it funny that political liberals want to make films made by nonprofits that talk about a candidate illegal because of "corporate influence" but cheer this type of direct corporate influence on the political process.

The distinction one can make is that the steps and actions taken are actual facts, reported upon by a variety of media, rather than dramatizations or (semi-)fictionalized accounts.

Also, the parties taking the various steps are identified, as are their executives, so the sources of the actions are standing behind them, properly identified and branded. There is personal and professional risk involved.

Many of these "movies" (and the whole problem behind this kind of political speech) is that it is often far more difficult to separate fact from fiction, or to determine the bona fides of the sponsors and authors. The risk to the sponsors and authors is de minimis at best.

Source, fact-checks and context are so different in the two situations that I don't think it's a meaningful comparison.

 

[SaintJ]

This is a problem

Where is "Lawyer"?

 

[JimEverett]

The distinction one can make is that the steps and actions taken are actual facts, reported upon by a variety of media, rather than dramatizations or (semi-)fictionalized accounts.

Why is that distinction important? I doubt you are saying that dramatizations or anything potentially fictionalized should be subject to government regulation, so I am not sure why this distinction would matter.

Also, the parties taking the various steps are identified, as are their executives, so the sources of the actions are standing behind them, properly identified and branded. There is personal and professional risk involved.

Citizens United made clear they were the makers/producers of the film "Hillary" - and its just as easy to find out their executives and directors as it is the ACC's

 

[livefromDC]

Hmmmm, my common sense super powers makes me think that you don't know any transgendered people.

Correction. He doesn't know that he knows transgendered people. He probably thinks he can "spot them from a mile away".

 

[livefromDC]

This is a problem

You can't figure out which one best describes you? Bad problem to have. I don't envy you. I know exactly how I self-identify. For most people, not all (you being a prime example), how you identify is innate. It's not something you have to be told. It's not something you that is pressed upon you. It's something you get from tvs, movies, or nudey magazines. For most people, it's not a problem at all. You see, even as an impressionable 4 y.o, a curious 13 y.o, or a sex driven 24 y.o...I knew I was a boy. I've always felt like a boy and I was attracted to girls. Thankfully for me, that's an acceptable way to feel by society's standards. Most other people, you excluded of course (but bare with me), know exactly, and have known their entire lives, how they identify. Their identity hasn't changed their throughout their lives and they've been certain of it their entire lives. They are as sure of their sexual and gender identify as I am of mine. Seeing a list of choices and becoming confused about my identity is as ridiculous an idea as seeing the choice "girl" and becoming confused. It's laughable actually. Forgive me. I didn't mean to be so insensitive. I just mean that the concept is so unfamiliar and foreign that I can't relate. Forgive my insensitivity to your struggle.

I'm sorry I can't relate to how it must feel to see all these choices and have doubts. I see how this can be a problem, I'm empathetic to your plight. I hope one day that you too will be more self-aware.

 

[rickysfan34]

.I knew I was a boy.

(but bare with me),

you sure?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

i'm actually disappointed we weren't having this discussion in the 80s - it was fun to dress with gender fluidity back then even if we didn't call it that

since we are all the products of 2 different "genders" it makes sense that we're all fluid to some degree (outside of a test tube 100% male or female seems highly unlikely)

plus skirts are very comfy and before i started getting middle-aged in my face my cheekbones really popped with a little color and my lashes have always been lucious

 

[superchuck500]

i'm actually disappointed we weren't having this discussion in the 80s - it was fun to dress with gender fluidity back then even if we didn't call it that

Yeah but people were somehow shocked and appalled to find out George Michael wasn't straight.

 

[insidejob]

Yeah but people were somehow shocked and appalled to find out George Michael wasn't straight.

What do you mean George Michael wasn't straight? Psshh...not buying your MSM spin. George Michael was a god damn ladies man.

(Did he die and I totally don't remember it and that's why we're talking about him in the past tense?)

 

[CountWhoDat]

I'm actually glad all of this happened, because we were able to squeeze an extra NBA All Star Game out of it. That's always a fun weekend in NOLA.

I think the banning of local non-discrimination ordinances in the so-called "Bathroom Bill" is actually the bigger issue. Those who engineered this bill and pushed it through want you to think about the bathroom part rather than this much more insidious and damaging portion of the bill. Many of the big cities in North Carolina have local non-discrimination laws that differentiate them from what I like to call the "Trump Country" portion of the state, and this bill renders those protections for LGBT people ineffective. So much for the efficacy of local government!

I think these institutions are more concerned about that than they are about what is sure to be toothless and non-existent bathroom birth certificate enforcement.

 

[billinms]

What do you mean George Michael wasn't straight? Psshh...not buying your MSM spin. George Michael was a god damn ladies man.

(Did he die and I totally don't remember it and that's why we're talking about him in the past tense?)

Only his career.