Talk:LGBTQ rights in North Carolina

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Primary election#Primaries in the United States|primary election]] The anchor (#Primaries in the United States) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

SB514 and Perdue

I have reworded some of the article to make less POV/puffery, but I wonder if the subsection about Governor Perdue's reaction to Senate Bill 514 is really needed here. Seems almost promotional to have it in since she really can't stop it from being on the ballot, I don't think. It might could go in Perdue's article, but not really convinced it is necessary here. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this out. Coverage of one person's reaction (who couldn't stop it from being on the ballot) is too detailed and unnecessary. I'm sure there will be lots of politicians who will support and oppose the measure. WP:UNDUE to list just one, even if it is the Governor. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-discrimination Employment rights county errors

Maybe I just don't get it but I've been through the ordinances of all the counties listed in the non-discrimination employment protections section and durham ^[1] and guilford ^[2] counties have absolutely no ordinances that include sexual orientation in any section. The only links are within the eeop (from eeoc) plans for each county and as such should be put in a different category of eeop plan affiliation and not as a ordinance ^[3]. It baffles me that this was overlooked b/c the Durham county and city within current version reference 34 are said to only be within the williams report because of the press release but the authors found No sign of the corresponding ordinance in effect in Durham. I think this goes back to hrc.org posting it as such but I'm pretty unknowledgeable about employment rights leading up to the current moment and so I plan to do some research and call/ email both the county offices and the hrc.org to get to the bottom of this at some point because it's a little silly. Does anyone know anything else about this case?

References

^ "Durham County Equal Opportunity Policy". Municode.com. Retrieved 25 January 2020.
^ "Guilford County Ordinances Section 7-19". Municode.com. Retrieved 25 January 2020.
^ "EEOP Utilization Plan (for the county of Guilford". guilfordcountync.gov/. Retrieved 25 January 2020.

[1] "Durham County Equal Opportunity Policy". Municode.com. Retrieved 25 January 2020.

[2] "Guilford County Ordinances Section 7-19". Municode.com. Retrieved 25 January 2020.

[3] "EEOP Utilization Plan (for the county of Guilford". guilfordcountync.gov/. Retrieved 25 January 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]