Last week, our Civil Rights Division notified state officials that House Bill 2 violates federal civil rights laws. We asked that they certify by the end of the day today that they would not comply with or implement House Bill 2’s restriction on restroom access. An extension was requested by North Carolina and was under active consideration. But instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning, the state of North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing the Department of Justice. As a result of their decisions, we are now moving forward.
Today, we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina. We are seeking a court order declaring House Bill 2’s restroom restriction impermissibly discriminatory, as well as a statewide bar on its enforcement. While the lawsuit currently seeks declaratory relief, I want to note that we retain the option of curtailing federal funding to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina as this case proceeds.
This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms. This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them – indeed, to protect all of us. And it’s about the founding ideals that have led this country – haltingly but inexorably – in the direction of fairness, inclusion and equality for all Americans.
This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation. We saw it in fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education. And we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry. That right, of course, is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our Constitution, and in the wake of that historic triumph, we have seen bill after bill in state after state taking aim at the LGBT community. Some of these responses reflect a recognizably human fear of the unknown, and a discomfort with the uncertainty of change. But this is not a time to act out of fear. This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness. What we must not do – what we must never do – is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans, for something they cannot control, and deny what makes them human. This is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not, or invents a problem that doesn’t exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment.
Let me speak now to the people of the great state, the beautiful state, my state of North Carolina. You’ve been told that this law protects vulnerable populations from harm – but that just is not the case. Instead, what this law does is inflict further indignity on a population that has already suffered far more than its fair share. This law provides no benefit to society – all it does is harm innocent Americans.
Instead of turning away from our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues, let us instead learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of our past. Let us reflect on the obvious but often neglected lesson that state-sanctioned discrimination never looks good in hindsight. It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference. We have moved beyond those dark days, but not without pain and suffering and an ongoing fight to keep moving forward. Let us write a different story this time. Let us not act out of fear and misunderstanding, but out of the values of inclusion, diversity and regard for all that make our country great.
The idea that allowing men to use womens bathroom is a great civil rights issue is complete and utter nonsenseYesterday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch delivered remarks at a press conference at which she announced the Department of Justice’s complaint against North Carolina to halt its discriminatory anti-trans legislation, and it was pretty awesome:
We can and do.Catholics cannot support this gender mythology and remain faithful to Christ.
Where discrimination on the basis of sex is not allowed. The DOJ says this applies to trans people, and the courts agree.Can you point out where this is in Title VII and Title IX. Especially where it says suffering under a delusion you are a member of the opposite sex entitlwes you to use the bathroom of your choice.
“Assigned sex”? And who did the assigning? God maybe?Transgender is not a sex or a gender. It is a descriptor for people whose assigned sex does not align with their gender.
Apparently it was the executive branch making regulations under title VII and title IX which decided that the 1964 civil rights act prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex means that persons can use the bathrooms intended for the opposite sex. If memory serves, a decision in the 4th Circuit agreed with this interpretation. The supreme court has not yet considered the matter. Ultimately, it will (likely?) decide that ‘sex’ means we are free to choose our sex and choose a bathroom accordingly. I think it is likely, since the Court has lately diverged from an objective look at reality in favor of subjectivism.Where discrimination on the basis of sex is not allowed. The DOJ says this applies to trans people, and the courts agree.
Attempting to normalize a sexual condition through “Bathroom Bills” shows the power of the LGBT activists. This is incorrect action. Decrees are not a good idea.Apparently, having or enforcing bathrooms limited to a single sex is deemed to be discriminatory.
I say ‘deemed to be’ because I don’t think that single sex bathrooms are discriminatory under the laws legislated by Congress. But while the founders were big on separation of powers, separating the legislative from the executive from the judicial, in practice, the executive branch through its regulatory agencies do effect legislation, calling it regulation. In fact it is more like legislation by decree.
Here’s a post I made that quotes the DOJ lawsuits. It’s a succinct explanation of the issue.“Assigned sex”? And who did the assigning? God maybe?
Decrees may not be a good idea, but under Title IX, for example, the DOJ makes decrees that effectively dictate everything that universities can and cannot do, and must do, in the areas of sex discrimination, alleged sexual assault, free speech and other matters.Attempting to normalize a sexual condition through “Bathroom Bills” shows the power of the LGBT activists. This is incorrect action. Decrees are not a good idea.
Ed
And the rabble-rousers still attempt to restrict free speech, and too often they succeed.Decrees may not be a good idea, but under Title IX, for example, the DOJ makes decrees that effectively dictate everything that universities can and cannot do, and must do, in the areas of sex discrimination, alleged sexual assault, free speech and other matters.
(The organization Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, was begun partly to fight restrictions on campus speech, many of which were effectively dictated by the DOJ under threat of economic sanction.)
Nope.We can and do.
Indeed. This is the stuff of Swift’s yahoos. When you hear news of a fish or pig or armadillo transgender open bathroom law, please post it.Five years ago, who would have imagined that the defining civil right of our generation would be the right of biological men to use the women’s public rest room? Strange times we live in.
Apologies, BUT…We can and do.
That is incorrect.We can and do.
Please define “male” and “female”.We can and do.
There is no discrimination in HB2. All males, all of them equally, have access to restrooms designated for males. The same applies to females. And those who choose to change their physical appearance to the opposite gender, they can then use the opposite gender’s restroom.Where discrimination on basis of sex is outlawed. The courts that have examined the issue confirmed this applies to trans people.
Who says their assigned sex is not the same as their gender? What biological evidence is there that this can be the case? Is there a DNA study that can identify this at birth?Transgender is not a sex or a gender. It is a descriptor for people whose assigned sex does not align with their gender.
Female : 2 X chromosomes. Male: 1 X and 1 Y chromosomePlease define “male” and “female”.
Yep.Female : 2 X chromosomes. Male: 1 X and 1 Y chromosome
Jon