North Carolina to Limit Bathroom Use by Birth Gender

[JonNC]

I am ambivalent about the bathroom issue. However, I strongly believe that local government should be able to raise the minimum wage. Local governments are closely accountable to citizens and are best able to determine the appropriateness of raising the local minimum wage. I think that they have included it with the bathroom legislation in hopes that it would get less attention.

Btw, I believe that wage abuse by employers is rampant in NC - wage theft in the form of non-payment of overtime specifically. Lowly paid individuals who are the most economically vulnerable are most often the victims because they cannot risk losing their jobs by seeking redress. It is shameful that NC State government is complicit in this practice.

You can feel that strongly, but in NC local laws cannot exceed state law.

Source, please for your wage abuse charge.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

You can feel that strongly, but in NC local laws cannot exceed state law.

Source, please for your wage abuse charge.

Jon

Of course, if it can be demonstrated that the new state law is based mostly on animus towards LGBT people, not upon a legitimate state interest, it will most likely be overturned by the Supreme Court. In the 1996 case Romer vs. Evans:

The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause.[2] The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked “a rational relationship to legitimate state interests”, and the dissent stated that the majority “evidently agrees that ‘rational basis’—the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause—is the governing standard”.[2][3] The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review.

The Colorado law, Amendment 2, forbade any local laws from protected LGBT people. As Justice Kennedy wrote in overturning that law:

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

 

[JonNC]

Of course, if it can be demonstrated that the new state law is based mostly on animus towards LGBT people, not upon a legitimate state interest, it will most likely be overturned by the Supreme Court. In the 1996 case Romer vs. Evans:

The Colorado law, Amendment 2, forbade any local laws from protected LGBT people. As Justice Kennedy wrote in overturning that law:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Then we simply establish a sanctuary state. Progressives do it all the time.
There is no animus here. As I said, the legislation does not cover private property.
Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

Then we simply establish a sanctuary state. Progressives do it all the time.
There is no animus here. As I said, the legislation does not cover private property.
Jon

What about this law:

The North Carolina state Legislature has passed a law blocking local governments from passing anti-discrimination rules to grant protections to gay and transgender people.

The law comes a month after the city of Charlotte passed a measure protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from being discriminated against by businesses.

That measure was set to go into effect on April 1.

The state’s General Assembly wasn’t due to meet until late April, but it scheduled a special session — for the first time in 35 years, member station WUNC reports — on Wednesday to respond to the Charlotte measure before it went into effect.

Over the course of 12 hours, the state legislators introduced, debated and passed the bill, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law.

The new law establishes a statewide nondiscrimination ordinance that explicitly supersedes any local nondiscrimination measures. The statewide protections cover race, religion, color, national origin and biological sex — but not sexual orientation or gender identity.

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/24/471700323/north-carolina-passes-law-blocking-measures-to-protect-lgbt-people

Doesn’t this North Carolina law look similar to the Colorado law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1996 in Romer vs Evans? It certainly looks like animus to me.

Here’s what the Colorado law said that was overturned:

Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

 

[Thorolfr]

Here’s what someone else has to say about the new North Carolina law:

HB 2 is also unconstitutional—not maybe unconstitutional, or unconstitutional-before-the-right-judge, but in total contravention of established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, the court dealt with a very similar law in 1996’s Romer v. Evans, when it invalidated a Colorado measure that forbade municipalities from passing gay nondiscrimination ordinances. As the court explained in Romer, the Equal Protection Clause forbids a state from “singl[ing] out a certain class of citizens” and “impos[ing] a special disability upon those persons alone.” Such a law is “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” and under the 14th Amendment, “animosity” toward a “politically unpopular group” is not a “proper legislative end.” Just like the law invalidated in Romer, HB 2 “identifies persons by a single trait”—gay or trans identity—“and then denies them protection across the board.” The Equal Protection Clause cannot tolerate this “bare desire to harm” minorities.

slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/03/24/north_carolina_s_anti_lgbtq_law_is_unconstitutional.html

 

[mikekle]

The law itself cannot prevent someone from cross-dressing convincingly in order to enter the locker room of the opposite sex.

However, the law empowers ordinary people to “say something” if they “see something” that looks suspicious. Otherwise, it would be “anything goes”, and eventually, no one would bat an eye if some dude strolled into the girls locker room at the local swim & racket club.

How will that even work though…will the cops be called and they will be expected to determine if its a true transgender or just a guy wanting to get into the girls locker room? LOL That will never work, if the cops make a mistake just one time, the city could be sued, and lead to all kinds of problems. Plus the guy could just insist he is transgender, it would be next to impossible to figure out if hes being truthful, to a complete stranger anyway.

Unfortunately this is probably something that cannot be avoided, a certain number of people will always be looking to take advantage of a new law or regulation, if it lets them ‘get away’ with something under the guise of something else, really nothing can be done that is going to satisfy everyone.

 

[JonNC]

Here’s what someone else has to say about the new North Carolina law:

slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/03/24/north_carolina_s_anti_lgbtq_law_is_unconstitutional.html

If we are going to redefine equal protection in such a perverse and depraved way as to deny females of all ages the privacy they deserve to use the restroom without men in the room, then truly, without tongue in cheek, I would demand to our state leaders that they defy such a court ruling.
It is real simple, to find out how you self identify, look down, and use the restroom that corresponds with the body parts you see. And if you are of the fraction of a fraction of a percent that have had those parts surgically changed, do the same: look down and use the bathroom that corresponds with the changed parts. If everyone does that, and acts like civil human beings, making no scene about birth certificates or what one once was, decency will be served.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

governor.nc.gov/press-release/myths-vs-facts-what-new-york-times-huffington-post-and-other-media-outlets-arent

 

[Thorolfr]

If we are going to redefine equal protection in such a perverse and depraved way as to deny females of all ages the privacy they deserve to use the restroom without men in the room, then truly, without tongue in cheek, I would demand to our state leaders that they defy such a court ruling.

But the new law is not just about what restrooms Transgender people can use. It also forbids all local laws intended to protect Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people from discrimination.

 

[edwest2]

But the new law is not just about what restrooms Transgender people can use. It also forbids all local laws intended to protect Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people from discrimination.

Room full of 100 people:

Pick out the bisexual.

Pick out the gay person.

Pick out the lesbian.

Pick out the transgender.

This isn’t about discrimination, it’s about “cultural change.” I saw it start in the late 1960s and it all boiled down to legalizing immorality. The pot smokers wanted it legal then just like they want it to be legal now. Dope is for people who want to cloud their minds and damage their lungs.

Wake up, people. This isn’t about bathrooms either. Somehow, LGBT people did what they wanted in the past, but convincing politicians to go their way? Wake up.

The culture changers can pass all the laws they want, but reality will prevail.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Wake up, people. This isn’t about bathrooms either. Somehow, LGBT people did what they wanted in the past, but convincing politicians to go their way? Wake up.

LGBT people did not do what they wanted in the past without the fear of being persecuted, arrested, blackmailed, etc. You should try reading the book by David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (University Of Chicago Press, 2006):

In Cold War America, Senator Joseph McCarthy enjoyed tremendous support in the fight against what he called atheistic communism. But that support stemmed less from his wild charges about communists than his more substantiated charges that “sex perverts” had infiltrated government agencies. Although now remembered as an attack on suspected disloyalty, McCarthyism introduced “moral values” into the American political arsenal. Warning of a spreading homosexual menace, McCarthy and his Republican allies learned how to win votes.

Winner of three book awards, The Lavender Scare masterfully traces the origins of contemporary sexual politics to Cold War hysteria over national security. Drawing on newly declassified documents and interviews with former government officials, historian David Johnson chronicles how the myth that homosexuals threatened national security determined government policy for decades, ruined thousands of lives, and pushed many to suicide. As Johnson shows, this myth not only outlived McCarthy but, by the 1960s, helped launch a new civil rights struggle.

amazon.com/Lavender-Scare-Persecution-Lesbians-Government/dp/0226401901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458960384&sr=8-1&keywords=lavender+scare

 

[St_Francis]

LGBT people did not do what they wanted in the past without the fear of being persecuted, arrested, blackmailed, etc. You should try reading the book by David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (University Of Chicago Press, 2006):

amazon.com/Lavender-Scare-Persecution-Lesbians-Government/dp/0226401901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458960384&sr=8-1&keywords=lavender+scare

Former freelancer for the DC Blade --no bias or possibility of agenda there, eh?

 

[Ender]

What about this law:

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/24/471700323/north-carolina-passes-law-blocking-measures-to-protect-lgbt-people

Doesn’t this North Carolina law look similar to the Colorado law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1996 in Romer vs Evans? It certainly looks like animus to me.

Here’s what the Colorado law said that was overturned:

The Colorado law was written explicitly about LGBTQXYZ, the NC law omits saying anything about them at all. In HB2, the law lists those classes that are protected; it does not identify any particular group specifically as not protected. LGBetc cannot charge they were singled out since there is nothing in the law that refers to them. The Colorado law was invalidated because of what it did say; it will have to be a different approach to invalidate the NC law because of what it didn’t say.

Ender

 

[Ender]

But the new law is not just about what restrooms Transgender people can use. It also forbids all local laws intended to protect Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people from discrimination.

That’s not actually correct either. What it does is protect cake bakers et al from being sued out of business because they don’t want to participate in gay “marriages.” There is a conflict here between those who want their life style accepted and those who want no part of it. Without the protection this law affords, gays can simply shop for bakers and candlestick makers who turn down requests to participate in gay ceremonies and sue them.

The question is really this: whose rights need to be protected?

Ender

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the wake of this legislation, I have read many articles from sources ranging from Fox News to the NY Times…IOW, opinions from both sides of the debate.

This article from Fox News is “fair and balanced”, IMO:

foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/24/new-north-carolina-law-overrides-charlotte-anti-discrimination-rule.html?intcmp=hpbt1

 

[irishpatrick]

my question is how will they find out?

lets say someone changes their birth certificate after getting the surgery

or what if they pass and they have not done the surgery

would they have people line up and then check?

why not just have one stall bathrooms that lock, that way it will stop all forms of possible assault(and be way better for the janitors)

I have a unique idea. How about we just use common sense. If one has male plumbing, they use the men’s room, if they have female plumbing they use the women’s room. Bathrooms serve a specific function–they are not social engineering spaces.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But the new law is not just about what restrooms Transgender people can use. It also forbids all local laws intended to protect Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people from discrimination.

I applaud the idea that NC has moved to prevent a patchwork quilt of laws from being stitched together based upon the ideologies of a small group of local, elected officials with an agenda.

One example of this type of nonsense is the rise of so-called “sanctuary cities” which defy federal laws concerning immigration simply because the local community has the votes to influence an election of a city councilman.

And BTW, NC also passed a law requiring citizens to show a photo ID when they show up to vote. Imagine that…only people who can prove they are citizens of this country are allowed to vote. Wow, what a hardship.

But the left is screaming about “disenfranchisement”.

Let’s be honest: when you apply for subsidized housing and food stamps, you need to prove you are who you say you are, don’t you? Folks seem to have no problem managing to find their driver licenses on those occasions, now do they? :nope:

 

[Memaw]

Some men can be very convincing as women. True they are men but they have been know to fool people. Look up ladyboys of Thailand. Short of inspecting someone’s privates how are they going to know?

That may be true but let’s don’t give them easy access. Have some respect for our real women. God Bless. Memaw

 

[exnihilo]

That is only evidence of a political stunt.

I like how when we show evidence of actual events, like lawsuits against cake makers or men using women’s bathrooms, those can be dismissed as political stunts.

The Colorado law, Amendment 2, forbade any local laws from protected LGBT people. As Justice Kennedy wrote in overturning that law:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Justice Kennedy thinks all laws show an animus except the rulings he joins in supporting killing babies. He is not a very smart man. His arguments are consistently terrible. We could say murder laws show an animus against murderers. It would be true and doesn’t make laws against murder wrong.

 

[josie_L]

Do you know anything about medical research or the peer review process? Founding an organization on a principle and designing research to fit it is backwards - and that’s their stated mission. Even if they are correct, their research methods don’t show it. You can’t do that in any field and have your conclusions be respected.

Do we know enough to state emphatically that “sex reassignment surgery” is the best thing to do for those with gender dysphoria? I am not convinced of it, and I would not call those advocating it as proponents of science and/or reason.

20% regret changing genders, over 40% attempt suicide, and even after surgery a large number remain traumatized

Hoping to have success with sex change surgery is like Russian roulette. You could be the lucky one, but reports show the risks are high and death is a strong possibility.

For 35 years serious questions have been raised about the overall long term success of changing genders.

Today we look at a report from The Guardian (UK) from July 2004 that included a review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transgenders by the University of Birmingham aggressive research intelligence facility. They found “no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.” Seeing that they reviewed not just one study but 100 international studies makes this report alarming.

In my view, this shows that failure comes all too often for transgenders and it is so unnecessary. The Guardian reports:

1.After gender reassignment, there’s still a large number of people who had the surgery but remain traumatized - often to the point of committing suicide.

2.Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth (20%) of patients regret changing sex. theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

waltheyer.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/20-regret-changing-genders-over-40attempt-suicide-and-even-after-surgery-a-large-number-remain-traum.html