Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

paypal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#51

Post by kombucha2 »

vertex-four wrote: post #42
throwaway5752 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is one of 3 major parts to the bill. You can read for yourself (with the handy diff-like format available here: http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocumen... ) or read any or the huge number of analyses of the bill. It is far beyond transsexual citizens of NC, though that aspect of the bill is ridiculous, too. Or will police have to inspect the genitalia of M2F/F2M transitioned people in the pr…

> Or will police have to inspect the genitalia of M2F/F2M transitioned people in the presence of a birth certificate? Stonewall all over again - "Standard procedure was to line up the patrons, check their identification, and have female police officers take customers dressed as women to the bathroom to verify their sex, upon which any men dressed as women would be arrested."[0] You'd think the US would be doing a lit…

Wow...just WOW, I never had any idea that was a part of Stonewall.. jesus.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#52

Post by joshuaheard »

gecko wrote: post #13
joshuaheard wrote: post #9

The law requires men to use the men's room, and women to use the women's room. I don't see the problem with that. If it's really an issue, why can't PayPal just put a third bathroom in its facility for any gender?

The law also bars cities from protecting LGBT rights, and bars individuals of any of the remaining protected classes for suing if they're discriminated against in the first place--effectively gutting the entire antidiscrimination law. Calling this "the bathroom bill" was a shrewd marketing move on the legislature's side, but there are some really strong reasons to condemn this bill even if you do agree with the bathr…

I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not, or thinks he is a woman. The law provides an accommodation for single stall bathrooms for any gender. I think Paypal is being the troll here.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#53

Post by EdwardMSmith »

joshuaheard wrote: post #52
gecko wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law also bars cities from protecting LGBT rights, and bars individuals of any of the remaining protected classes for suing if they're discriminated against in the first place--effectively gutting the entire antidiscrimination law. Calling this "the bathroom bill" was a shrewd marketing move on the legislature's side, but there are some really strong reasons to condemn this bill even if you do agree with the bathr…

I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not, or thinks he is a woman. The law provides an accommodation for single stall bathrooms for any gender. I think Paypal is being the troll here.

> I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not.

Why? What is the underlying reason for that? Is it different if your (hypothetical?) son of the same age might have a woman (regardless of dress) in with him?

I'm genuinely curious.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#54

Post by tzs »

joshuaheard wrote: post #9

The law requires men to use the men's room, and women to use the women's room. I don't see the problem with that. If it's really an issue, why can't PayPal just put a third bathroom in its facility for any gender?

If that was all it had done, and if it had defined men as "people who have a penis" and woman as "people who do not have a penis" or something along those lines, then unless one objected to the whole idea of separate men's and women's rooms it would be fairly hard to come up with a decent objection. (Why do we have separate men's and women's rooms? We didn't have them in student housing at my college, and it was never a problem.)

Others have already pointed out that this is not all it does. It goes far beyond the bathroom.

In addition to that, it also botches the bathroom portion because it sorts people into bathrooms by what is on their birth certificate. If your birth certificate says "male", for instance, but you've had male to female sex reassignment surgery you'd still be sorted into the men's room under this law.

The proponents of the law say that it is easy in North Carolina to get your birth certificate changed to match your new sex when it changes, such as due to sex reassignment surgery.

The problem with that is that there are actually people who are born outside of North Carolina, but for inexplicable reasons move there. North Carolina did not issue their birth certificates, and so North Carolina's ease of changing a birth certificate is irrelevant to them.

Idaho, for example, does not allow amending the sex on a birth certificate. A person who is born female in Idaho, moves to North Carolina, and undergoes female to male sex reassignment surgery will be required to use the woman's room, despite sporting a penis, in North Carolina.

Maybe we are splitting bathrooms wrong. Maybe instead of men/women, the split should be stand/sit. Have one kind of bathroom that just has urinals, and one that just has enclosed stalls. If you have a penis and just need to urinate, you use the former. If you do not have a penis or you need to defecate you use the latter.

Since the latter would have enclosed stalls, you should have enough privacy that it doesn't matter who else is using the other stalls.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#55

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #34
Grishnakh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no kidding about the enlightening response. This guy has the worst username ever ("throwaway5752"); he's one of the best and most informative posters I've ever seen here.

Thanks :) It was throwaway at first, but I've grown fond of it.

Easily the worst username.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#57

Post by gecko »

joshuaheard wrote: post #52
gecko wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law also bars cities from protecting LGBT rights, and bars individuals of any of the remaining protected classes for suing if they're discriminated against in the first place--effectively gutting the entire antidiscrimination law. Calling this "the bathroom bill" was a shrewd marketing move on the legislature's side, but there are some really strong reasons to condemn this bill even if you do agree with the bathr…

I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not, or thinks he is a woman. The law provides an accommodation for single stall bathrooms for any gender. I think Paypal is being the troll here.

> I read the law, and I don't see where it does that.

That's okay; a lot of people have reading deficits, and in fact my company works a lot to help people with them. One thing we've found helps with reading deficits is breaking things down, so let's do that.

First, load up http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pd... in another browser window. That's the actual bill text, presented as a diff.

HB2 has three parts. The first part is about bathrooms, and the second part prohibits cities have a minimum wage other than the state's, so I'm going to completely ignore those two bits.

That leaves part III. Part III has three main parts. Here's what they do:

Part III, Section 3.1(c), says that only the state definitions of protected classes matter, and that local municipalities cannot define their own: "this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State". So the only protected classes are those defined by the state.

Part III, Section 3.2, adds the line, "This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein." This is technical language, but "private right of action", in this context, means "bring a suit." Thus, only the state can bring action; you can't. And due to Part III, Section 3.1(c), local cities cannot create their own laws that do permit this. Thus, the first part of my statement: you are now barred from suing for discrimination, and must rely on the state.

Finally, Part III, Section 3.3(a), redefines the state's protected classes to include "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex". Since sexual orientation and gender identity are not included here, and Part III Section 3.1 forbade cities from having their own protected classes, we have now prohibited the entire LGBT community from being declared a protected class, and therefore the state is under no obligation (and, in fact, has no legal basis) to bring discrimination complaints about sexual orientation.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#58

Post by oliwarner »

gist wrote: post #41
oliwarner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overriding? They're not writing the law here, they're going where the best laws are (or where the worst aren't). NC gets to keep its shitty laws, PayPal just won't be part of it. What's your alternative here?

No this is a bit different. They are publicly announcing it in a way that says "we don't approve and here is your punishment for taking this route". Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs as well as the other economic impact of the decision? All to citizens who might not have had a say in choosing this outcome? I won't even get into the impact on stockholders who…

> They are publicly announcing...

So? They clearly have an opinion on this. Why isn't a company, especially a big company which has many types of stakeholder, allowed to share its opinion?

I'd much rather it did this than just bribe the politicians to change the laws.

> what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs

Well, indeed. This was going to be a huge operation that would have involved shipping in many families, exposing them to these laws.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#60

Post by draw_down »

JeremyNT wrote: post #50
Grishnakh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the people of NC are getting exactly what they deserve. They voted for this. And spare me the whining about gerrymandering. The Governor is elected by everyone in the state; gerrymandering has no effect on that election. If this were really an issue of gerrymandering, we would have seen a crappy bill passed by the Legislature, and sent to the governor, and promptly vetoed because the governor more closely repre…

There are two NCs. One is currently in power; the rural, poor, uneducated. The other is more modern. We live in cities and we want our homes to be good places to live for all people. You can view maps of this state and how it votes, and the places this law will negatively impact (places where modern industry might have otherwise come) did not vote for this. There is a war here: rural versus urban. The rural counties…

Is it really "painting with the same brush" to say the people of NC voted for this? In your Prop 8 example, the people of California voted for that.
Post reply on HN