Quote:Only if the employer is willing to do the same vice versa. If that happens then you can have a meaningful discussion about wages, benefits, etc.
It would be an eye opening experience it the employee actually learns what it costs an employer to put them to work.
Quote:PayPal opened an office in Malaysia where gays are routinely jailed. I think it's safe to say they don't really care about LGBT rights but at least they get good PR from it.
Depends on how you define "care". I know for a fact that a proper risk assessment includes an analysis of PR implications. A possible failure in a location where it would cause national media coverage gets a lot more attention than one where there is no or only local coverage. Even if they're the exact same failure with the exact same consequences in terms of money/health/safety.
Quote:Depends on how you define "care". I know for a fact that a proper risk assessment includes an analysis of PR implications. A possible failure in a location where it would cause national media coverage gets a lot more attention than one where there is no or only local coverage. Even if they're the exact same failure with the exact same consequences in terms of money/health/safety.
If they're so concerned with how LGBT folks are treated I would say the fact that they would conduct business at all in a country that treats LGBT folks badly and does nothing about it because of lack of PR is pretty crappy. Their 'outrage' at what's going on in NC is false.
Quote:If they're so concerned with how LGBT folks are treated I would say the fact that they would conduct business at all in a country that treats LGBT folks badly and does nothing about it because of lack of PR is pretty crappy. Their 'outrage' at what's going on in NC is false.
Not really crappy at all.
There were anti-sodomy laws in the US (outlawing even certain types of sex between married couples) until 2003 whenn <i>Lawrence v Texas</i> where those laws were struck down by SCOTUS. Paypal became a business in 1998. It's a matter of affecting policy. Pulling out of North Carolina shows support for the LGBT community (as well as their LGBT customers and LGBT workers).. Pulling out of Saudi Arabia, Singapore, or Malaysia isn't going to affect policy. Now it'd be a much bigger statement if they pulled out of those countries. The outrage isn't false. It's a matter of how it effects profits. It's easy to convince the stockholders to pull out of North Carolina because of the law. Convincing them to pull out of entire countries would no doubt be a much harder sell. Especially since it wouldn't create positive PR for them as well, and largely would accomplish nothing. They're still a company when it comes down to it. I'm sure they don't like the treatment of gays in those countries either. But they're a company, and their primary goal is to make money. They can afford to make a move like this in this country because support for LGBT rights have gained a lot of traction. Apple's CEO is gay, and he still does business with places where homosexuality is a crime. He still employs people in those places too. It'd be a stretch to say that he doesn't care about LGBT rights. But making a statement by pulling out of countries like that would fall on deaf ears in those countries. In this country, their voices are heard, and paid attention to. Changing an entire culture isn't easy to accomplish. America has slowly evolved toward being pro-LGBT rights. It's happened much faster than most people expected (and I'm sure this has caused some animosity from certain groups). Such a statement has much more influence in a country like ours, than in those other countries. I'm sure if they thought that they could get those places to change their laws by pulling out, they would. But it won't. They are set in their ways. And it's going to take more than a few companies pulling out to convince them it's time for them to change.
Quote:If they're so concerned with how LGBT folks are treated I would say the fact that they would conduct business at all in a country that treats LGBT folks badly and does nothing about it because of lack of PR is pretty crappy. Their 'outrage' at what's going on in NC is false.
I'm saying that any time a corporation makes a decision like this it's because they analyzed the risk/reward tradeoff and made a decision based on the solution to a mathematical equation. If they'd supported the bill if would have been just as false.
Quote:Tim Cook is gay?
Yeah, he is gay.
These laws are last ditch efforts try and slow down a changing society. They are not even realistic. Are the police going to do a crotch check as every person enters a bathroom? They will be as effective as gun free zones. If someone is going to attack someone in the bathroom a law saying they can't go in the bathroom isn't going to stop them, just like the law sayng they can't attack someone didn't.
Oh, and states that allow trans people to use whichever bathroom haven't seen a single case of trans people attacking unsuspecting non-trans people. Why not make a law saying it's illegal to pretend to be trans in order to commit a crime? Wouldn't it be better to punish the criminals instead of innocent people?
Quote:Not really crappy at all.
There were anti-sodomy laws in the US (outlawing even certain types of sex between married couples) until 2003 whenn <i>Lawrence v Texas</i> where those laws were struck down by SCOTUS. Paypal became a business in 1998. It's a matter of affecting policy. Pulling out of North Carolina shows support for the LGBT community (as well as their LGBT customers and LGBT workers).. Pulling out of Saudi Arabia, Singapore, or Malaysia isn't going to affect policy. Now it'd be a much bigger statement if they pulled out of those countries. The outrage isn't false. It's a matter of how it effects profits. It's easy to convince the stockholders to pull out of North Carolina because of the law. Convincing them to pull out of entire countries would no doubt be a much harder sell. Especially since it wouldn't create positive PR for them as well, and largely would accomplish nothing. They're still a company when it comes down to it. I'm sure they don't like the treatment of gays in those countries either. But they're a company, and their primary goal is to make money. They can afford to make a move like this in this country because support for LGBT rights have gained a lot of traction. Apple's CEO is gay, and he still does business with places where homosexuality is a crime. He still employs people in those places too. It'd be a stretch to say that he doesn't care about LGBT rights. But making a statement by pulling out of countries like that would fall on deaf ears in those countries. In this country, their voices are heard, and paid attention to. Changing an entire culture isn't easy to accomplish. America has slowly evolved toward being pro-LGBT rights. It's happened much faster than most people expected (and I'm sure this has caused some animosity from certain groups). Such a statement has much more influence in a country like ours, than in those other countries. I'm sure if they thought that they could get those places to change their laws by pulling out, they would. But it won't. They are set in their ways. And it's going to take more than a few companies pulling out to convince them it's time for them to change.
Quote:I'm saying that any time a corporation makes a decision like this it's because they analyzed the risk/reward tradeoff and made a decision based on the solution to a mathematical equation. If they'd supported the bill if would have been just as false.
I can see where you both are coming from. I guess I see it as a thing where if you are for or against something that's it. You don't change your stance on it just because it doesn't garner you the attention, PR, or whatever you're looking for. I guess a difference is when it's a company with shareholders you have them to consider whereas with a small business you do what you feel is right based on your beliefs/convictions.
Quote:Yeah, he is gay.
These laws are last ditch efforts try and slow down a changing society. They are not even realistic. Are the police going to do a crotch check as every person enters a bathroom? They will be as effective as gun free zones. If someone is going to attack someone in the bathroom a law saying they can't go in the bathroom isn't going to stop them, just like the law sayng they can't attack someone didn't.
Oh, and states that allow trans people to use whichever bathroom haven't seen a single case of trans people attacking unsuspecting non-trans people. Why not make a law saying it's illegal to pretend to be trans in order to commit a crime? Wouldn't it be better to punish the criminals instead of innocent people?
No, but there have been issues with
straight people using a restroom/locker room they don't belong in because according to them the law said they could use any restroom they wanted. And I agree, punish people who are breaking the law, but unless the person outright says they're straight like the example I just mentioned, how are you going to know the person is who they say they are? Just because someone says something it doesn't make it true.
In the link above the guy was kicked out of the restroom but returned later when young girls were changing for swim practice. This is the sort of thing that people are worried about outside of seeing men in women's restrooms and women in men's. People with bad intentions can and will take advantage of this and it will be a very bad day the first time a kid gets molested in a state that has this law in effect. And not molested by a transgender, but by someone who took advantage of the system because in their mind, "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."
Quote:No, but there have been issues with straight people using a restroom/locker room they don't belong in because according to them the law said they could use any restroom they wanted. And I agree, punish people who are breaking the law, but unless the person outright says they're straight like the example I just mentioned, how are you going to know the person is who they say they are? Just because someone says something it doesn't make it true.
In the link above the guy was kicked out of the restroom but returned later when young girls were changing for swim practice. This is the sort of thing that people are worried about outside of seeing men in women's restrooms and women in men's. People with bad intentions can and will take advantage of this and it will be a very bad day the first time a kid gets molested in a state that has this law in effect. And not molested by a transgender, but by someone who took advantage of the system because in their mind, "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."
People with bad intentions do things regardless of laws. Remember this:
http://www.news4jax.com/news/local/jso-s...y-restroom. He was in there even though there wasn't a transgender bathroom law. The law isn't going to cause stuff like this to happen. It happens anyways.
Also, I want to make sure you realize that the article you cited is referring to a man who is NOT trans. My statement that not a single trans person has attacked a non-trans person is true.
Lastly, People with bad intentions can take advantage of any law. As I mentioned, why punish trans people, why not make a law that punishes the criminals? Transgender restroom rights don't commit crimes, people commit crimes. If you lined up every single transgender bathroom law, not a single of of them would commit a crime. It is kind of like the argument that guns don't shoot people, people shoot people. You don't take away guns because some people take advantage of the laws to buy them and commit crimes. Anyone could say they are buying a gun for any reason, just because someone says it doesn't make it true.
Listen, truth is, people are scared and when they are afraid they will be reluctant to accept changes in societal norms. I am not scared of trans people or people taking advantage of trans laws attacking my children in the bathroom. They could be attacked in the bathroom regardless of where someone pees.
We will have to agree to disagree.
A brand new generation of hippies.
I wish that some of these states would call these companies' bluffs. I guarantee if North Carolina banned the sale of all NBA merchandise and the airing of NBA games on television the NBA's bottom line would be hurt a lot more than North Carolina's. A strong stand needs to be made against companies that attempt to strong arm politics. It's bad enough with the lobbyists influencing politics without this new load of crap.
Kind of like when Arizona was passing SB 1070 and California was threatening a boycott against everything Arizona. Then Arizona turned around and said that's fine, but we'll just stop exporting our 40 billion kilowatt hours of electricity from APS to southern California... Essentially blacking out San Diego and Los Angeles and returning them to the stone age. The diatribe from California ended shortly thereafter.
Quote:Your own argument proves my point. What about those that are? Some of you liberals are so obsessed with proving how enlightened you are that you can't see the forest for the trees.
Most conservatives aren't perverts or freaks.What about those that are? Obviously none should be allowed in bathrooms.
Pearl clutching "think of the children" types are going to be crying bloody murder when I F2M with a full beard walks into the women's room while they are in it. Some of you conservatives are so concerned with proving how wholesome you are that you can't see the forest for the trees.
Quote:Your own argument proves my point. What about those that are? Some of you liberals are so obsessed with proving how enlightened you are that you can't see the forest for the trees.
Really? You are doing nothing more than showing your acceptance of a stereotype. Transgenders are no more threat to children than the general population. The Republican former speaker of the HoR used to put a Lazy Boy in view of the boy's locker room shower at the high school where he taught, so he could "stop fights." He also had sex with some of those boys.
Given your "logic", Republican politicians should be barred from public restrooms.
Quote:Depends on how you define "care". I know for a fact that a proper risk assessment includes an analysis of PR implications. A possible failure in a location where it would cause national media coverage gets a lot more attention than one where there is no or only local coverage. Even if they're the exact same failure with the exact same consequences in terms of money/health/safety.
Semantics aside, I'm sure you know which definition I was speaking about.
If they're doing it for PR implications, then they're only doing it for their own benefit. It still doesn't change that they don't really care about LGBT rights. They just don't want the negative PR. That isn't, however, what they're leading the public into believing. Otherwise, they'd pull their Malaysian office.
Quote:A brand new generation of hippies.
I wish that some of these states would call these companies' bluffs. I guarantee if North Carolina banned the sale of all NBA merchandise and the airing of NBA games on television the NBA's bottom line would be hurt a lot more than North Carolina's. A strong stand needs to be made against companies that attempt to strong arm politics. It's bad enough with the lobbyists influencing politics without this new load of crap.
Kind of like when Arizona was passing SB 1070 and California was threatening a boycott against everything Arizona. Then Arizona turned around and said that's fine, but we'll just stop exporting our 40 billion kilowatt hours of electricity from APS to southern California... Essentially blacking out San Diego and Los Angeles and returning them to the stone age. The diatribe from California ended shortly thereafter.
On the flip side Arizona was quick to sign into law the Observance of MLK day after the NFL pulled the Super Bowl from them.
Quote:Most conservatives aren't perverts or freaks.What about those that are? Obviously none should be allowed in bathrooms.
Pearl clutching "think of the children" types are going to be crying bloody murder when I F2M with a full beard walks into the women's room while they are in it. Some of you conservatives are so concerned with proving how wholesome you are that you can't see the forest for the trees.
Quote:Really? You are doing nothing more than showing your acceptance of a stereotype. Transgenders are no more threat to children than the general population. The Republican former speaker of the HoR used to put a Lazy Boy in view of the boy's locker room shower at the high school where he taught, so he could "stop fights." He also had sex with some of those boys.
Given your "logic", Republican politicians should be barred from public restrooms.
Both of you are barking up the wrong tree. Where did I say that transgender people could not use any public bathroom?