NC lawmakers pass a bill saying UNC has to leave the ACC if they boycott NC again.

[Bill Derington]

While I have no doubt you personally understand, Bill, I don't think everyone is on the same page.
I'm not going to lie, I didn't think our discourse would go this way when we started the conversation, but I'm with you on several points. Namely, the Charlotte ordinance being ridiculous. Government shouldn't even wade into those waters.
At the same time, I think hb2 was a petty, childish response. Legislation that creates problems and is wholly unenforceable serves no purpose. That's what both of these measures were.

I'm not defending HB2, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The popular opinion and story was to attack HB2, and the story as to why it came to be kind of fell to the wayside.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Because the NCAA's function is to be the head of collegiate athletics. Not to wade into State political battles, where would you draw the line?

Should the NCAA remove events if it feels a state has too high of taxes on workers in a state?

The law had nothing to do with college athletics.

They can do whatever they want. Do you want the government to pass even more regulations so that a sports organization will do what you want it to?

 

[Montana81]

Because the NCAA's function is to be the head of collegiate athletics. Not to wade into State political battles, where would you draw the line?

Should the NCAA remove events if it feels a state has too high of taxes on workers in a state?

The law had nothing to do with college athletics.

The NCAA has the right to protect their own image and brand though. They could say they don't want any events period held in a state with discriminatory laws because it hurts THEIR image.

No one is forcing the North Carolina universities to be a part of the NCAA.

 

[catben]

Funny how you contradict yourself....on one hand, you felt it necessary to protect your young daughter from harm when she had to go potty, but then turn 180 and argue that all that ever goes on in a bathroom is people going potty.

There are other things people need a discreet place for...and a bathroom is just perfect....isolated, no cameras, no witnesses...people removing their clothes

Actually I was asking WHY do we have to have a law to distinguish what bathroom someone goes into?

Why would any person want to openly go into a bathroom that was for the opposite sex? And if they did, why would they want others to KNOW they were of the opposite sex? Why wouldn't anyone want to keep their sexual identity discreet?

My point was why does my family have to conform to the behavior that is in the minority?

I was using the way I handled my daughter as an example of taking her into the bathroom with me to protect her. If I had a young son that was out with his mother, I would want her to take him into the ladies room with her to protect him also.

Those 2 scenarios are the ONLY reasons I could see as to why the opposite sex would need to go into the other's bathroom. But if they did choose to go into the opposite restroom, why wouldn't they keep it to themselves what sex they were?

Why does my family have to "accept" someone choosing to go into the opposite bathroom? That's the question I'm asking.

 

[wentzel25]

Now an NC legislator gives us this gem. They're on a roll.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article144216324.html