North Carolina Bans Cities From Pulling “Transgender” Bathroom Shenanigans

There aren’t any opinion pieces thundering in Outrage from the major national news sources yet, but, it has given the NY Times and others a sad

North Carolina legislators, in a whirlwind special session on Wednesday, passed a wide-ranging bill barring transgender people from bathrooms and locker rooms that do not match the gender on their birth certificates.

Republicans unanimously supported the bill, while in the Senate, Democrats walked out in protest. “This is a direct affront to equality, civil rights and local autonomy,” the Senate Democratic leader, Dan Blue, said in a statement.

North Carolina’s governor, Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed the bill late Wednesday night.

The session, which was abruptly convened by Republican lawmakers on Tuesday, came in response to an antidiscrimination ordinance approved by the state’s largest city, Charlotte, last month. That ordinance provided protections based on sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity, including letting transgender people use the public bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, not gender at birth.

Parents all over Charlotte were livid that someone who is of a different biological sex than their child would be able to enter the bathroom with their child. The bill puts an end to this idiocy.

Republicans stressed that the bill was passed not just to protect women and children from unwanted and potentially dangerous intrusions by biological males, but also to clarify legislative authority. On the House floor, Representative Dan Bishop, a Republican who sponsored the bill, described Charlotte’s decision to enact an antidiscrimination measure as an “egregious overreach.” With the state bill, he said, “What we are doing is preserving a sense of privacy people have long expected.”

The state does have primacy of law. For instance, I remember back to my college days in Greenville, NC, where the city stated there couldn’t be more than 3 unrelated people living in a domicile. State law said 5. This rarely came up, because it was mostly ignored, as many rented homes and apartments would have 4 people, but, some people we sorta knew from having good parties got busted, and the city was telling them “no more than 3.” State law takes precedence. Isn’t this similar to what liberals were saying in regards to Arizona’s illegal immigrants law, as well with a few other states? Yes, yes it is.

Some large firms in the state, many having policies that allow transgender access to bathrooms by identity, opposed the new bill. Dow Chemical, a major employer in the state, called the bill an “attempt to undermine equality.”

Those companies are welcome to have their own policies which they can force on their employees who can get a different job. This law says that it cannot be forced on citizens by Government.

Let’s switch to WRAL, a major Raleigh news organization

A proposal that codifies a statewide nondiscrimination policy in employment and public accommodations and prohibits North Carolina cities or towns from enacting stricter guidelines was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory late Wednesday after clearing the General Assembly in less than nine hours.

“I have signed legislation passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and etiquette which was to go into effect April 1,” McCrory said in a statement. “Although other items included in this bill should have waited until regular session, this bill does not change existing rights under state or federal law.

“It is now time for the city of Charlotte elected officials and state elected officials to get back to working on the issues most important to our citizens.”

I like how McCrory pulled out the “do some real work” card.

The bill excludes gays and lesbians from discrimination protections, however, prompting an outcry from LGBT advocates, some corporations and Attorney General Roy Cooper, the Democratic candidate for governor.

No, it doesn’t, it provides for protections for all citizens, regardless of sex, make believe sex, religion, creed, or color. It treats all the same, as the law should. No one should be placed on a higher pedestal than another citizen.

The biggest part of the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act is about making sure that local governments, agencies, and school boards do not allow people of a different biological sex to use a bathroom and/or changing facility that is not of their biological sex. They can make a single person bathroom/changing room as multi-sex to accommodate. If liberals want to pull these types of shenanigans, perhaps they should go back to their northern towns and states which they’ve ruined with their leftist policies, and stop bringing their insanity down here.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

22 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-24 08:48:12

How are these laws enforced in practice? Government bathroom police checking “junk”?

 
Comment by Dana
2016-03-24 09:40:10

Simple: if some guy walks into the ladies’ restroom and whips out equipment that actual women do not have, someone will file a complaint, and, hopefully, the guy gets arrested, charged, convicted and put on the sex offender registry for the rest of his sick life.

First we had to make an ‘accommodation’ for homosexuals, who are just 2% of the population, because we are so nice and all, you know. Now, having been given an inch, the deviates want to take a mile, and demand an accommodation for mentally ill people who make up something like one out of thirty thousand people.

Why must normal people accommodate the sickos?

 
Comment by Trish McNamara
2016-03-24 11:09:32

The fact that we even have to discuss this is amazing. I would be horrified if a man was in the bathroom with my granddaughters, or a woman with my grandsons. That said, there’s no reason to make a law for this. If a transgender truly is wearing woman’s clothes etc, and uses a stall as we all do, it would go unnoticed. If they are simply flaunting the laws of common decency, wanting to crash a woman’s bathroom, they ought to be jailed for it.
And anyone who is so enlightened as to think otherwise, is a jackass. There is a reason we have two sexes…and a reason we keep boys and girls (especially youth) in separate bathrooms.

 
Comment by Dana
2016-03-24 14:54:45

You know, people might have a little more sympathy for the ‘transgendered’ if they weren’t so insistent on trying to get sane people to accept their mental illness as normal. If some guy wants to wear a dress and have himself mutilated, most Americans wouldn’t make it illegal; I’d feel sorry for him for being so messed up. That, after all, would really be none of my business.

But that just isn’t good enough for the activists; tolerance isn’t good enough, and acceptance is required. They want something that I figure is none of my business to be made my business! As Erick Erickson put it, you will be made to care.

 
Comment by john
2016-03-24 15:34:29

Hey Trish is your son back home ?
I am approaching 70 I have yet to see in a public bathroom some guy whip out his penis. My guess is that this would be as traumatic for a young boy as a young girl
So let’s get this straight: you would prefer someone who has the appearance of a woman using a man’s bathroom, and someone who has the appearance of a man using the woman’s bathroom chaz bono uses the ladies room ????? https://www.google.com/search?q=masculine+appearing+woman&espv=2&biw=1240&bih=683&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU1ZLWh9rLAhWLJB4KHYkgA-wQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=chaz+bono&imgrc=v1CoIp2hQGfLtM%3A
and Rue Paul uses the men’s room ??????
https://www.google.com/search?q=rupaul&espv=2&biw=1240&bih=683&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt9_WUiNrLAhVIFh4KHVNUCSAQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=T6gARoUCwd8KMM%3A
And you think that this is going to solve that “problem” ?????????

 
Comment by john
2016-03-24 15:37:26

Is this BIG GOVERNMENT (state) telling locals how they must live ?

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-24 16:18:16

Anyone waving their penis around in a men’s room would be shunned/shamed/reported anyway (except for Don Trump who according to Senator Rubio has a tiny micropenis that couldn’t be seen anyway).

The law is intended to harass transgendered folks and solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Come on conservatives, “man up” for once and just tell the truth about your objectives, like dana did. You think transgendered folk are evil/sick/disgusting etc and should be shamed for their being.

We lefties think “new conservatives” are evil/sick/disgusting and should be shamed too. The only difference between the “new cons” and transgendered is that the transgendered are less dangerous to decent society.

 
Comment by Jl
2016-03-24 16:47:42

More proof, as if any is needed, that liberalism is a mental disease.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-24 17:00:20

j,

The fear on the right is that Trump or Cruz will sink the Senate and maybe now even the House, and President H. Clinton will nominate the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. Big money is pulling out of the Repub presidential race and focusing on Senate and House races.

I don’t know if far-right extremism is truly a DSM-IV type disorder but if so, it’s the broadest mental disease in America, affecting about 30% of the populace. All joking aside, the far-right has been damaging this nation for the last 35 years and is getting even more extreme, largely because those they’ve oppressed for so long are getting fed up.

 
Comment by john
2016-03-24 17:17:01

here is a picture of an actual transgiy he now must legally use only the ladies room in NC http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/trans-man-exposes-the-absurdity-of-north-carolina-republicans-with-a-simple-message-to-gov-pat-mccrory/
please tell me if he should use the ladies room or the mens room

 
Comment by john
2016-03-24 17:21:28

and what’s up with that Republican Gov in GA banging his aid in his official office? The GOP is just plain wierd about Sex

 
Comment by Jl
2016-03-24 19:50:49

J- Thanks for proving my point. I didn’t even have to write a rebuttal.

 
Comment by William Teach
2016-03-24 21:54:08

Is this BIG GOVERNMENT (state) telling locals how they must live ?

No, this is limited government telling lower level governments that they cannot force private businesses to act in a certain manner.

and what’s up with that Republican Gov in GA banging his aid in his official office? The GOP is just plain wierd about Sex

Two words: Bill Clinton.

Comment by John
2016-03-25 10:00:30

So I guess what you are saying here Teach is that you are a hypocrit for not denouncing the GOP for what you see as abhorrent in Dems

 
 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-24 22:07:44

Why are corporations in NC complaining about the new discriminatory law?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-03-24 23:34:11

Why are corporations in NC complaining about the new discriminatory law?

First, the law is not discriminatory as it applies to all people. I know that you really aren’t interested in a true answer and are only trolling, but for the uninitiated in your tactics, I’ll play along.

Similar legislation was proposed here in my town.

The main thrust of the argument is that it puts companies and corporations in a no-win situation. If the company allows the use of bathrooms by biological members of the opposite sex, there are going to be complaints – justifiable and legally persuasive complaints – of the company creating and allowing a “climate of sexual harassment” or “hostile environment.”

If a law is passed allowing transgendered people to act as they see fit, it is the company or corporation that is left holding the bag no matter what they do. If they allow a biological male in the women’s bathroom, a complaint will follow. If the law is passed, the transgendered person would be able to sue the company. ‘

The company is caught in the middle having to defend itself over and over from complaints. These laws would essentially legalize a “hostile environment” while at the same time demanding the company comply with demands that people be allowed to create that hostile environment.

That’s the problem that companies are worried about.

It is a valid and legitimate concern when companies and corporations can’t make a decision that will not have them end up in court.

Comment by John
2016-03-25 10:02:39

GC. Don’t you have any extra bathrooms down their that used to be used for other 2nd class citizens? Just remove the Volored signs and put a sign seeing ANYONE

 
 
Comment by Dana
2016-03-25 06:32:59

John wrote:

and what’s up with that Republican Gov in GA banging his aid in his official office? The GOP is just plain wierd about Sex

Hardly weird: he’s male and his alleged paramour is a woman. Yeah, it was wrong, but hardly weird.

I remember back when two congressmen got caught screwing pages. One, Garry Studds, a Democrat, was copulating with a male page, while the other, a Republican whose name escapes me, was molesting a female. National Review’s comment was, “At least our guy likes girls.”

The Republican was quickly out of office; the Democrat kept getting re-elected by the idiot voters in Massachusetts.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-03-25 10:40:32

john, I appreciate the fact that every time I think you can’t say something dumber than you have before, you step up and lower the bar even more.

But your stupidity illustrates the problem. Corporations are not allowed to discriminate or allow hostile work environments. What you and others propose puts companies in a no win position.

 
Comment by Dana
2016-03-25 11:01:37

Mr Carver noted:

Corporations are not allowed to discriminate or allow hostile work environments.

If a transsexual can claim that not recognizing him as the sex he says he is creates a hostile work environment, why wouldn’t requiring other people to lie about a co-worker’s sex (the NYC ordinance) or share a bathroom with someone of the opposite sex not also be a hostile work environment?

The only sensible solution for any corporation is to not hire anyone that they can tell is a transsexual.

 
Comment by jl
2016-03-25 12:19:29

John- “here’s a picture of a transguy- he must now use the ladies room..” Except that she’s not a guy. She’s a she. If this person were to, say, leave DNA at a crime scene, that DNA would come up as female. Too bad, John

 
Comment by Scott
2016-03-29 21:09:31

This is a good law. The reason I say this…is…if I feel a little bit female today, then I could just head into the girls locker room and jump in the shower with them. What if…the sight of the naked girls in the locker room made me feel like I was a male again? There are a lot of men who would take advantage of a law permitting them to get into women’s private areas…and you can bet that if we allowed them a loophole to do it, they would.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10461 access attempts in the last 7 days.