2017 All Star Game Moved From Charlotte

[Braggins]

If I own a private business, why must I be forced, through the government, to give service to anyone? It's my business, I make the rules. If I don't want to sell to white people, atheists, midgets, or people with red hair. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

that just opens many cans of worms. if you dont want to serve everyone equally, then you probably shouldn't get into business.

Let's try and take sensational emotion out of it and step out of the safe space for a minute. First of all, "I" was used in the impersonal sense. Secondly, if I were to open a business, I wouldn't really care what color, creed, etc. you are. The whole purpose of a business is to make money. Excluding anybody from your customer base is inherently bad for business. So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with what you just said.

However, my point is that the government has no right whatsoever to tell a private person with whom they are allowed to deal with in their own private business. That should not be the role of government.

I don't completely disagree with your argument and I tend to side with the right of the individual in the vast majority of cases, however, think of some of the implications of not having a Civil rights act in the Southern states.

What would have been a better solution to ensure that minorities in the South had access to the system of production of goods and services? Humans having the potential to be such reprehensible creatures creates some pretty difficult conundrums.

[SWedd523]

only a better of time until it's struck down

Why do you think I consider this a bad thing? The courts are doing exactly what they should in this case

Saying that anti-discrimination laws should apply? That seems like the opposite of what you think should happen given your earlier posts in this thread.

Don't know what to tell you, maybe go back and re-read what I wrote? Maybe it was the lack of ability to clearly state my viewpoint? I much prefer to speak about situations like this instead of typing

[SWedd523]

I don't completely disagree with your argument and I tend to side with the right of the individual in the vast majority of cases, however, think of some of the implications of not having a Civil rights act in the Southern states.

What would have been a better solution to ensure that minorities in the South had access to the system of production of goods and services? Humans having the potential to be such reprehensible creatures creates some pretty difficult conundrums.

I honestly don't have any idea. I wasn't around at that time so I couldn't tell you. Though, I think historically speaking that racism/segregation waned as the years passed. Had nothing been done legally, I think we would've eventually seen the same effects of the CRA (albeit probably at a much slower pace).

There is obviously a slippery slope issue on both sides of the governmental dictation argument. Unfortunately, we're seeing one side of it here in this case with HB2

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

I expect the folks that passed the law to fight for it. I expect the bathroom portion of the law to get struck down, however that's the least impactful part of the law. I expect the lack of ability for NC residents to sue for discrimination & the parts that override local government contracting regulations to still be in place at the time of the ASG. Will that be enough of a change for Silver? IDK. Once the bathroom thing goes away I think that a lot of the national media coverage will vanish as well, so less pressure on the NBA.

As much as I want the ASG ... and as much as I view this as Charlotte getting whacked twice if the ASG leaves (once by the state & a 2nd time by the NBA) ... I kind of hope they do move it if any of HB2 is still in effect.

[yosemiteben]

Don't know what to tell you, maybe go back and re-read what I wrote?

You wrote: "The government also has no right whatsoever to tell me what my bathroom policy should be."

Striking down HB2 (like you are saying you want) would have the effect of the original Charlotte ordinance springing into place, which in fact does tell businesses what their bathroom policy should be, or at least tells them in part what it can't be.

You are saying on the one hand that you want HB2 stuck down, while at the same time saying you are opposed to the ordinance that HB2 was passed to avoid.

But regardless, I think the view that businesses should be free to have discriminatory practices is absurd in light of the historical context from which the Civil Rights Act emerged. Society's whims at a particular point in time should not be the only check on discrimination.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

SWedd, just so it's out there historically racism didn't start high after the Civil war and slowly get better over time. It actually had peaks and valleys over the years. The myth of "things always getting better" is something that seems to get taught in lots of civics courses, but history doesn't work that way.

One of the largest peaks if not the worst was around the 1920s. In general things tended to be better after the major wars where blacks and whites fought side by side. That was one of the reasons you saw so much change in attitudes towards race after WWII. Even so, I honestly don't think that most of the south would have changed in the 60s without government intervention.

Do we still need those laws now? My personal opinion based on the racist folks I've met, the victims I know, and historical information about other historical parallels is yes.

[countryboi]

20-30 years from now some of you guys are going to look back and remember how you were on the wrong side of history.

[SWedd523]

Peaks and valleys yes, but I'd still say that representative line graph would have a steadily correlated move away from the direction of racism, especially as the generations who had slavery and segregation die out.

Society forced the government's hand for women's suffrage, black rights, and now LGBT issues. Not the other way around.

And yosimite, yes. You're still reading me wrong. Feel free to send me a pm if you want so we don't continue to talk around each other and clutter up this thread with political talk

[SWedd523]

20-30 years from now some of you guys are going to look back and remember how you were on the wrong side of history.

And I assume this is directed at me? Either way it's an awfully ignorant and baiting comment to make and offers nothing in the form of constructive discussion.

I don't remember seeing anyone here saying this "anti transgender" state law is a good idea

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Peaks and valleys yes, but I'd still say that representative line graph would have a steadily correlated move away from the direction of racism, especially as the generations who had slavery and segregation die out.

You would be wrong, but I encourage you to do the research on your own.

[Eoghan]

I hope they do take the All-Star game from Charlotte. Charlotte should be punished for a poorly worded law that overrode their authority.

I'm sure transgender folks are treated great in China too, by the way.

[Eoghan]

• People fired for any discriminatory reason – including race, religion, disability and biological sex – no longer may file a lawsuit in state courts.

• People denied service for any discriminatory reason – including race, religion, disability and biological sex – no longer may sue in state courts.

This is written into the law. If you support this, please explain yourself.

Laissez Faire.

[Braggins]

• People fired for any discriminatory reason – including race, religion, disability and biological sex – no longer may file a lawsuit in state courts.

• People denied service for any discriminatory reason – including race, religion, disability and biological sex – no longer may sue in state courts.

This is written into the law. If you support this, please explain yourself.

Laissez Faire.

"Whitechocolatespaceegg" had a couple goods songs, but I never got too into her music.

[countryboi]

20-30 years from now some of you guys are going to look back and remember how you were on the wrong side of history.

And I assume this is directed at me? Either way it's an awfully ignorant and baiting comment to make and offers nothing in the form of constructive discussion.

I don't remember seeing anyone here saying this "anti transgender" state law is a good idea

I wasnt directing my post at you or anyone else but I can now. Your ideas are antiquated, free market does not correct societal issues. Society sometimes has to be pulled forward kicking and screaming. if it wasnt for laws like the civil rights act of 1964 I would still be using the coloreds only bathroom and being a private business shouldnt give you a discrimination free pass.

[SWedd523]

Oh okay, so it was just a passive aggressive remark made towards no one. Makes sense.

So society didn't force the government's hand in 1964? All the government did was put legal weight behind a CIVIL MOVEMENT that had taken power in the country. The civil rights movement didn't start after the CRA. It started well before it. The government didn't just wake up one day and go, hey you know what, let's do something about that. No.


Edit: And just curious, what is your opinion of stores posting no guns allowed signs in their windows, which discriminates against constitutionally abiding citizens. Do you think that's wrong too?

[Cheeze]

All laws discriminate someone. A law that says we are to drive on the right side of the road, for example, discriminates against those born in Britain who want to drive on the left. That law restricts choice. Now, with LBGT - the evidence isn't conclusive on the genetics - some may argue that being transgender isn't a choice...that HB2 discriminates against someone that doesn't have a choice in their gender. Otherwise, HB2 would restrict bathroom access based on choice, just like the right-side-of-the-road law.

So the law discriminates against a small, small section of society that wants to use the bathroom as they choose. And the outrage and vitriol over this is just dadgum funny. The concern over the restriction in discrimination law suits and the minimum wage portion of the law are legit. But nobody is threatening to burn down the castle because of these issues. It's a fight over where someone can choose to pee.

But then there's this:
McCrory’s office says businesses aren’t limited by the bill, and that private companies and private universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies. Private businesses can establish their own practices concerning LGBT employees and customers; the new law does not allow so-called “public policy common law” complaints in state courts to challenge those practices.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article68401147.html#storylink=cpy

The NBA's threat:

"The NBA is dedicated to creating an inclusive environment for all who attend our games and events. We are deeply concerned that this discriminatory law runs counter to our guiding principles of equality and mutual respect and do not yet know what impact it will have on our ability to successfully host the 2017 All-Star Game in Charlotte.”

So...according to McCrory's office, the Hornets and Time Warner Arena can establish its bathroom policy how it wants. It can make bathrooms transgender-friendly. And if this is the case, the conditions in the arena comply with the NBA's stated goal of creating an inclusive environment for all who attend the All Star Game.

And that means that if the NBA pulls the game without anything happening to HB2, it does so solely for economic means and not from any higher moral ground.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

The bathroom portions of the bill are actually the LEAST problematic parts of it.

[Cheeze]

Agreed. And that's the point. But where's the press on the non-bathroom stuff? Where's the debate? Where's the op-eds?

Meanwhile, the world spins on where folks urinate and the NBA makes threats about it.

[JDR720]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/north-carolina-lawmakers-file-bill-repeal-bathroom-law

[spaceballer]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nba/charlotte-hornets/article74065062.html

Predictable obligatory statements and stance from MJ in this situation, so not that surprising. But the article does highlight the damage it would do to him and his local partners, in terms of squandered resources, that they may have been better off not investing in the first place if the venue is changed.

Article also hints that it will be resolved one way or the other within the summer, in order to give another city the time they need to reserve hotel space and do adequate planning if Charlotte is indeed to lose the ASG. So there's a ticking clock.