NY Times Very Upset Over NC Law Refusing “Transgenders” Access To Opposite Sex Bathrooms

I was wondering if the NY Times would jump into the debate over the just passed and signed North Carolina law that restricts cities from passing laws that allow people who feel they are the opposite sex from using opposite sex bathrooms, changing rooms, and showers. They didn’t disappoint, and, they seem more upset about this than over Islamists spreading their hate through violence in an attack that killed dozens, including Americans, not too mention the hundreds hurt

Transgender Law Makes North Carolina Pioneer in Bigotry

Officials in Charlotte, N.C., spent more than a year carefully considering and debating an antidiscrimination ordinance that was passed in February to promote the city’s culture of inclusiveness. State lawmakers quashed it on Wednesday by passing an appalling, unconstitutional bill that bars transgender people from using public restrooms that match their gender identity and prohibits cities from passing antidiscrimination ordinances that protect gay and transgender people.

Citizens of Charlotte were appalled at the passage of the bill allowing men and women pretending to be the opposite sex to go into areas that would put them in contact with their children in an inappropriate manner. The editorial does forget to mention how this law is in any way constitutional, but, then, the NY Times also thinks that gun confiscation is Constitutional, so, there’s that.

That threat exists only in the imagination of bigots. Supporters of the measures have been unable to point to a single case that justifies the need to legislate where people should be allowed to use the toilet. North Carolina is the first state to pass such a provision.

So, we’re to wait till there is a case? Liberals love to trot out the “won’t someone think of the children” talking point, yet, in this case, they won’t think of the children, show shouldn’t be exposed to people pretending to be the opposite sex in their bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms.

Under the law, people in North Carolina are required to use public restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate. Transgender people in the state can request to have their birth certificate changed only if they have had gender reassignment surgery. Many transgender people cannot afford surgery or choose not to have it.

Well, that’s their problem, is it not? Why should the children be exposed to Someone Else’s problem for idiotic far left patronizing beliefs?

North Carolina could face serious economic repercussions from the law. It can expect a backlash from leading employers, a potential cut in federal education funding and lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the law. American Airlines, which has a hub in Charlotte, and PayPal, which recently announced it would create 400 jobs in the state, are among several companies that have already criticized the law.

At the end of the day, though, this kerfuffle will drop out of the public conscious, and the companies will forget their apoplexy in favor of making money. Furthermore, why no link about the constitutionality? Probably because there is nothing unconstitutional, by either the state or federal constitutions, that bars the state from restricting cities from passing laws that allow people to use the opposite sex bathrooms and such due to their beliefs.

Mr. McCrory, who is running for re-election, may have assumed the bill would help him in a tight race against Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat who called the measure shameful. “Not only does this hurt North Carolina families, but it hurts our economy as well,” Mr. Cooper said in a video message. Voters should reject the candidate who made the state a pioneer in bigotry.

The law protects citizens, including children, from having to deal with opposite sex people in their bathroom. Said transgenders are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority, while there are lots of children. Oh, and we have a saying here in North Carolina: if you don’t like the way we do things, I-95 goes north and south, as does I-85. I-40 goes west. Pick a direction, and mind your own business.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

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

11 Responses to “NY Times Very Upset Over NC Law Refusing “Transgenders” Access To Opposite Sex Bathrooms”

  1. Dana says:

    If the good people of the Tarheel State don’t like the new law, they can vote out the legislators and governor who passed it.

    Of course, all of those politicians have done something really radical, like win an election, and they all have their eyes and ears open for what they believe that their constituents want; how many of them would have voted for the law if they believed that their constituents would object?

    Houston, a fairly liberal and diverse city, which elected an openly lesbian mayor, had the city council foist something on them like the council did in Charlotte. Conservatives got a repeal measure put on the ballot, and 61% of the city’s voters chose to repeal the ordinance. Perhaps the state lawmakers saw that, and realized that even some of their more liberal constituents would support their actions.

    • John says:

      Dana
      There are going to be a lot more dykes with full beards appearing in the ladies room than outwardly appearing men choosing to use the ladies room

  2. John says:

    Ok so Rue Paul is going to use the boys room and Chaz Bono will use the girls room
    You would prefer to have a full bearded transgendered woman who appears to be a man using the ladies room
    And
    Full drag queen using the men’s room
    ??????
    Because in either case you think if they whip out their junk in the middle of the room some kid is going to be less transfixed/traumatized seeing a vagina in the men’s room and a duck in the ladies room
    Okaaaaay if you say so

  3. John says:

    Seems like more than just the NYT are upset many many major corporations and most professional athletic leagues, that seems pretty main stream to me
    Funny how discrimination of most types seems to happen in the old slave states

  4. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    There are going to be a lot more dykes with full beards appearing in the ladies room than outwardly appearing men choosing to use the ladies room

    And how many “dykes” have full beards?

    Actual transsexuals make up a minuscule part of the population, somewhere between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 30,000. They’re going to have to either use the bathroom of their correct sex, the one they were born, or find a one-staller. I’m sorry if it hurts their feelings — OK, that’s a lie: I’m not sorry at all — but the rights of the vast majority should not be trampled because one small group of mentally ill people gets upset.

  5. john says:

    Dana if you want to share the toilet room with rue Paul instead of Chaz Bono there is no need to apologize.
    I myself would prefer to have to use the bath with someone who at least LOOKS like a man as opposed to someone who LOOKS like a woman. But hey, to each his own The NBA doesn’t like this new law. Conservatives always seem to come out the losers in culture wars

  6. jl says:

    They call it “bigotry”? Because they want only females in female rest rooms and only males in male restrooms? More liberalism mental disease on display. They tackle only the real important stuff like this.

  7. Dana says:

    I’m not worried about Rue Paul, John: I’m just an old country boy, far too deep in the backwoods of Pennsyltucky to ever see a celebrity ’round these parts.

    But us good old country boys do have some common sense, you know: we can still tell boys from girls, something that liberals can’t quite seem to do anymore.

    • John says:

      Dana
      You aren’t like those country boys in Deliverance are you?
      Well nice to know that the intertubes have reached out that far into Pennslytucky
      My what a big world this is !!!!

    • John says:

      Dana maybe 50 years ago you may have been thought of as a country boy
      But
      Today with a farm as big as that you are more likely to be classed as landed gentry

  8. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    Today with a farm as big as that you are more likely to be classed as landed gentry

    I s’pose that depends upon your definition. My wife and I own 7.92 acres, hardly a big farm, but if by “today” you are referring to the majority of suburban and urban dwellers, I guess that much property might be considered “landed”.

    Trouble is, while the land is really beautiful, the house, while certainly livable — livable enough that I have it rented out, meaning that I am a despicable landlord! — is a fixer-upper as far as we are concerned. When we move down there, my darling bride (of 36 years, 10 months and 7 days) expects me to remodel it completely. I’m not sure that “gentry” really applies!

Bad Behavior has blocked 15883 access attempts in the last 7 days.