Thursday, March 31, 2016

Roy Carroll's John Hammer on HB2; "NC Restrooms: Same As They Ever Were"

"...A memo from City Attorney Tom Carruthers to the members of the Greensboro City Council states that this new law will have little effect on Greensboro.  In Greensboro, before the law was passed, people were expected to use the restroom facilities of their biological gender and they still are.

...Carruthers did note, “This means that the recent amendments in City policy and ordinance to protect gender identity and gender preference are probably eliminated.”

Nancy Vaughan can't have anything to do with this issue,
as it would be a direct conflict of interest for her.

Also, that because the statute takes precedence over city ordinances, the ability of the Human Relations Commission to “investigate and regulate citizen complaints of employment discrimination and public accommodation discrimination are now eliminated.”

...Another portion of the new state law prohibits cities from setting a minimum wage for private businesses. Greensboro has not set a minimum wage for businesses in Greensboro, but has raised the minimum wage for city employees, which it still has the power to do...

John Hammer is a bigot for Roy Carroll

...In the state budget passed last year, state Sen. Trudy Wade, who represents High Point, fought hard for the furniture market and got the allocation raised by $544,000 per year to the present level.

Nice threat

Shut up or lose your money

By joining the onslaught of opposition to HB 2, the furniture market may have put that funding in jeopardy."
On the Rhino's John Hammer, Downtown Greensboro Inc., and what appears to be a bit of bigotry

On John Hammer's Apology

Spag on The Rhino Cartoon

Ed Cone's on the (racist) cartoon incident
"Why would the cartoonist choose to portray the convicts speaking in a phony,
minstrel-show dialect?

(African-American English doesn't inflect 3rd-person plural verbs
with "-s" as the cartoon does in "builds" and "pays.)

Is he making a real attempt to represent black speech,
but is too ignorant to do so?

Or is he being intentionally provocative by evoking a form of entertainment
that is particularly demeaning to black people?

And why choose to portray both convicts as African-Americans?

In any case, I have a hard time seeing the cartoon as anything but a deliberate racial provocation
-- one that I find both disgusting and depressing."

David Wharton