I remember when NC was about as progressive as it got for a Deep South state.

Oh, and surprise surprise...that whole "An armed black gangbanging homeless convicted sex offender could bring a civil rights lawsuit" stuff is totally untrue.

Absolutely nothing in there about it being a Civil Rights issue.

Governor hopes to weasel out of backlash with Executive Order 'clarifying' HB2.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominichol...-executive-order-in-attempt-to-clar#.wfwWp6RG

Doesn't look like anyone is buying it. We'll see if the boycotts slow down.

I post, but very infrequently.

He's just pissed because he can't watch porn any more.

Every sperm is sacred or is dayton's sperm sacred or ted cruize?

Just saw something on Facebook and was wondering it myself. Paraphrase: If Christian bakers and florists can be sued and/or fined for refusing service for a gay wedding, can Bruce Springsteen be sued/fined for canceling his concert?

No.

Why?

Because Bruce isn't singling out any one particular group. If he doesn't play he's denying service to everyone equally.

No, he's singling out North Carolinians, who under the equal protection clause have to be equally protected.

I don't think North Carolinians are a recognized minority group - yet.

They're the NC in LBGTSNCQA.

No he's not. He's singling out venues in North Carolina.

Interesting interpretation, but now that fat bastard is dead the only hope that you have in court is for Obama to nominate a right wing judge and for his masters to approve it. It seems someone forgot to tell the republicans to begrudgingly concede when Obama nominates a right wing hack to please them. I am pretty sure when Hillary or Bernie become president we will see a social liberal appointed.

Because Christian bakers and florists are free to not open stores in states who's laws they don't like.

Given that Jesus regularly hung out with whores and thieves, you'd think Christian bakers could handle making cakes for gays, but apparently not.

Continuing on that... Jesus also told them to go and sin no more. He did not join in or approve of their sin.

Neither did he continue to bash on them after the fact, either, as many "Christians" do.

Bash?

You know, that whole business about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or the part about getting the mote out of your neighbor's eye, by removing the log from one's own first. Both of those statements can be interpreted as Jebus saying one shoukd mind their own business and make sure that they were behaving properly before lecturing others on how to behave.

Along those lines, I sometimes wonder why business owners seem to cherry pick which sinners they will and won't serve. It seems to me that it should be all or none. Just put a sign up that says, "We don't serve sinners".

"Christians", make a big fucking deal about homophobia and transphobia, because they've been brainwashed by their pastors towards it for the last 30 years, and the pastors have stirred it up because the church high-ups have told them to, and the church high-ups want it stirred up, because the church wants its dick in politics, and nothing gets people stirred up like fear and anger, and fear and anger needs an enemy.
And the fact they have to make enemies out of innocent people shows America doesn't have any real ones.
Oh, people hate America, but no one can stand against us.
So, political opportunists have to turn us against each other, and it's not PC to do it about race anymore.

That's how I see it, anyway.
It's all cynicism, this "deeply held beliefs", shit is a smokescreen of cow farts.

What does that have to do with bashing?

Who's cherry picking? Since when has adultery, lying, stealing, etc. been held up and celebrated as good and normal things? If the serving involved obvious sin should a Christian just go along with it? Are you advocating that the state decided how and when a person may practice their faith?

Unless their customer is Jesus Christ, they're selling stuff to adulterers, liars, and thieves, etc. but drawing the line at homosexuals. That's cherry picking. A sin is a sin. If they're going to deny service to some sinners, it only makes sense that they deny service to all sinners.

I'm not advocating that the state do anything.

Show me a consumer business that prohibits adulterous clients. Go on, just post a link to any evidence that such a place exists.

Didn't seem to slow down Newt Gingrich's awful career.

You know, telling people that the way they're living their lives is wrong, based on your interpretation of a book which may or may not even address the particular issue you're complaining about.

I'll respond to Forest by transposing here the response I had to McCory's fix leaf ExecOrder:
http://wncn.com/2016/04/12/mccrory-issues-executive-order-on-house-bill-2/


So let's see now...as a trans woman, I can work for the state so long as I pee in the men's room? Gee thanks, Gov! You're a swell guy!

Also, private sector business can establish their own restroom and locker room policies (which is good) and yet, somehow, it it urgently necessary that they legislate "common sense" segregation in government buildings and school because, e claims, privacy must be protected. Let's think this through.

A trans woman (let's be honest, none of these Pharisees are on about trans men) can leave her home, go to Walmart and use the ladies rom while there, go over toKkroger and if need be use their ladies room, see a movie and sometime during those two hours use the ladies room, run by the courthouse to get her property taxes paid and be forced to use the men's room, then go to diner and use the ladies room, and take in a Durham Bulls game and use the ladies room....
and that ONE time during the day that she's forced to use the men's room was a highly critical and necessary piece of legislation to pass?

Likewise, a trans girl must be forced to use the boys restroom at school, a highly structured and controlled environment where all students should theoretically be safest, and then after 3 she can leave school, ride to the mall with some of her friends and use the ladies room there completely without incident or harm to anyone present...also her girlfriends can be protected from "having" to suffer her presence at school, then go to the mall and have to "endure" not only her but an other trans woman or girl who happens to be peeing at the same time - AGAIN with absolutely NO harm befalling anyone...

But it is nevertheless critical, somehow, that NCGA and the governor make sure that in that ONE location which they routinely visit, girls do not experience that which they routinely experience in the rest of their public life?

And these turkeys get PAID to do this job? It's like the Keystone Kops broke out in Raleigh.


Basically, the NCGA didn't solve the problem they claimed existed (which didn't) because they weren't trying to. They were straight-up pandering.

What's worse, it won't even ultimately accomplish whatever the hell they insist they are accomplishing because it won't hold up in court - but what it will do is allow the Pharisees to go out and fund raise based on how they have to stop the out-of-control courts from oppressing them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...room-law-discrimination-lgbt-column/82872840/

Same goes for Mississippi's assholory, and the shit politicians in SC, Missouri, Tennessee, Kansas, and Michigan are trying to pass (the first 2, likely 3, of which will be vetoed but still legislatures will waste time on them)

No.