North Carolina House Passes Bill Voiding All Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinances

[GMDino]

Because...uh...freedom?

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_north_carolina_lawmakers_pass_bill_voiding_all_local_lgbt_nondiscrimination_ordinances

Quote:Led by Republican Speaker Tim Moore (photo), Republican House lawmakers in North Carolina have just passed a sweepingly broad anti-gay bill in a special session called just for this one bill. The bill will void all local nondiscrimination ordinances. It will also mandate that all public accommodations ordinances, all minimum wage ordinances, and all employment discrimination ordinances come only from the General Assembly – state lawmakers – effectively banning any localities from protecting citizens in any of these areas.

The bill, HB 2, passed by a huge margin, 83-24, after less than three hours of debate and just 30 minutes of public comment.

HB 2 now heads to the Senate, who will take it up immediately. 

It is expected to pass and Governor Pat McCrory, who called for the bill, is fully expected to sign it.

The bill is a direct response to a nondiscrimination ordinance passed by the Charlotte City Council. State GOP lawmakers were incensed that it allows transgender citizens use public restrooms that corresponds with with their gender identity.

So, to be clear, they don't want the federal government telling the state what to do...but they also don't want cities to do anything the state doesn't want them to do.

Makes total sense.  

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 05:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: So, to be clear, they don't want the federal government telling the state what to do...but they also don't want cities to do anything the state doesn't want them to do.

Well, at least it is for a good cause.

[GMDino]

(03-23-2016, 06:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well, at least it is for a good cause.

The souls of the sinners? 

[SunsetBengal]

Ah, the bathroom bill.  Glad that thing passed.  If you have an innie, you use the ladies room.  If you have an outie, you use the men's room.

You want to go into whichever bathroom you feel like?  Go to Planet Fitness..

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 06:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ah, the bathroom bill.  Glad that thing passed.  If you have an innie, you use the ladies room.  If you have an outie, you use the men's room.

You want to go into whichever bathroom you feel like?  Go to Planet Fitness..

It is not a "bathroom bill".


 "The bill will void all local nondiscrimination ordinances. It will also mandate that all public accommodations ordinances, all minimum wage ordinances, and all employment discrimination ordinances come only from the General Assembly – state lawmakers – effectively banning any localities from protecting citizens in any of these areas."

[Vas Deferens]

(03-23-2016, 06:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ah, the bathroom bill.  Glad that thing passed.  If you have an innie, you use the ladies room.  If you have an outie, you use the men's room.

You want to go into whichever bathroom you feel like?  Go to Planet Fitness..

They just threw the minimum wage piece in there for good measure.  Everyone, get in on this pork-barrel bathroom bill!  Tell 'em they gonna get raped!


***** idiots.

[*bfine32*]

I would have to read the text of the ordinances this measure voided. Anybody that has already spoken out against this measure have a copy of these ordinances or are we just speaking out because of the picture the good folks at The New Civil Rights Movement are painting?

The reason I ask is because the lead talk about anti-gay; yet the conclusion states in response to Gender identification. Folks speaking out against this have to have a better knowledge of what the repealed ordinances contained; don't they?

[GMDino]

(03-23-2016, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would have to read the text of the ordinances this measure voided. Anybody that has already spoken out against this measure have a copy of these ordinances or are we just speaking out because of the picture the good folks at The New Civil Rights Movement are painting?

The reason I ask is because the lead talk about anti-gay; yet the conclusion states in response to Gender identification. Folks speaking out against this have to have a better knowledge of what the repealed ordinances contained; don't they?

http://www.wral.com/nc-lawmakers-bar-lgbt-protections-against-discrimination/15594951/

Quote:The legislation is in response to an ordinance passed last month by the Charlotte City Council that broadly defines how businesses treat LGBT customers. The ordinance includes a provision that allows transgender people to use public bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.


Social conservatives have railed against the Charlotte ordinance for weeks, saying it violates the religious freedom of business owners and puts women and children at risk by allowing sexual predators to go into women's bathrooms.

"If God didn't give you access to a male or female bathroom via your anatomy, neither should we give you access via either ordinance or legislation," John Amanchukwu, executive director of Upper Room Christian Academy in Raleigh, told members of the House Judiciary IV Committee on Wednesday morning.

Chloe Jefferson, a junior at Greenville Christian Academy, called the prospect of a boy in the girl's bathroom or locker room at her school "completely frightening," adding that dealing with body image is hard enough for teen girls without having boys around when they change clothes or go to the bathroom.

"I am not the only girl scared," Jefferson said.

Charlotte business owner Heather Garofalo encouraged lawmakers to outlaw local anti-discrimination ordinances, saying they threaten her religious right to choose not to serve LGBT customers.

"Business owners like myself, we would be forced to check our deepest-held beliefs at the door or suffer fines of $500, jail time, lawsuits," Garofalo said. "I am asking for a right to provide for my family."

But several transgender people pleaded with lawmakers to defeat the proposal, saying they are just as scared to go into bathrooms where they don't feel comfortable.

"I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die there," said Madeleine Goss, a Raleigh woman who said she was bullied as a boy in Hickory because of her gender identity.

"I have the right to be safe too," a sobbing Angela Bridgeman told lawmakers.

"I feel bullied by you guys," Sky Thompson, a 15-year-old transgender boy from Greenville, told senators. "Imagine yourself in my shoes, being a boy walking into a ladies room. It's awkward and embarrassing and can actually be dangerous."

"Are you really interested in me being spit on and pushed around and shoved because of who I am in a restroom?" asked Rev. Michael Slack, a transgender man. "Legislating mistreatment, hatred and misunderstanding is shameful."

The bill would require people to use the bathroom that aligns with the gender listed on their birth certificate. Backers noted that North Carolina law allows people who have undergone a sex change to amend the gender on their birth certificates. California and Texas also allow people to amend their birth certificates, but it was unclear Wednesday whether other states had similar regulations. 

"This is really not about bathrooms. It's about fear," said Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg. "The spirit of the bill is not what it says it intends to do."
Rep. Tricia Cotham, D-Mecklenburg, said the bill resorts to fear-mongering and "flies in the face of" attempts to move North Carolina forward.

"We must be a state that is inclusive and welcomes in North Carolina and protects everyone," Cotham said. "You are absolutely not protecting children, and you're not protecting women."

But Rep. Dean Arp, R-Union, said "prisoners have more privacy" than people in public bathrooms under the Charlotte ordinance.

"How compassionate is it to strip North Carolina citizens of their right to privacy?" Arp said.

Cotham was able to amend the bill to allow parents or caregivers to take children under age 7 into a public bathroom with them, regardless of gender.

Yeah, that just makes it sound worse.

Assholes.

[GMDino]

Here's some more twisted thinking:

Quote:In addition to voiding the bathroom provision of Charlotte's ordinance and spelling out state policy on discrimination in employment and public accommodations, the bill also would prohibit cities and counties from adopting so-called living wage ordinances because that would require businesses to pay workers more than the state-established minimum wage. 


Bishop and other supporters said North Carolina needs consistent regulations for business and that Charlotte overstepped its authority by passing its ordinance.

"This is not new law," Bishop said. "It's a clarification."

His characterization of the Charlotte City Council as "a handful of radicals under the influence of an activist group" and the ordinance as "the picture of the subversion of the rule of law" drew sharp rebukes from House Democrats.


"Government is best when handled at the lowest level possible," said Rep. Marvin Lucas, D-Cumberland, who called the bill "micromanaging."

"Even the authority you have given them in the past, you have taken away from them," said Rep. Mickey Michaux, D-Durham, noting the General Assembly has stripped cities of power several times in recent years.

Reps. Mike Hager, R-Rutherford, and Nelson Dollar said the legislature needs to act when Charlotte or another jurisdiction oversteps its authority.

"These cities and counties, especially in this case, have operated outside their boundaries, and they're into the boundaries of the state," Hager said.
"We do not need any municipal government acting outside of its appropriate authority, particularly when they are seeking to make political statements," Dollar said.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/nc-lawmakers-bar-lgbt-protections-against-discrimination/15594951/#wKoAX1jpkBC6lU9k.99

[GMDino]

And here is the bill:

http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2015E2&DocNum=2&SeqNum=0

You can read the dredge for yourselves.

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2016, 09:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.wral.com/nc-lawmakers-bar-lgbt-protections-against-discrimination/15594951/




Yeah, that just makes it sound worse.

Assholes.

I agree that could make it sound worse. 

[*bfine32*]

But here is the actual measure without the biased commentary:

http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2015E2&DocNum=2&SeqNum=0


Maybe not as "wide-sweeping" as some would lead you to believe. It appears to deal solely with the single sex facilities. Admittedly I have not scrubbed the legislature however a control F of the document returned 0 hits when homosexual, gay, or same sex are used as guide words.

[GMDino]

(03-23-2016, 09:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But here is the actual measure without the biased commentary:

http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2015E2&DocNum=2&SeqNum=0


Maybe not as "wide-sweeping" as some would lead you to believe. It appears to deal solely with the single sex facilities. Admittedly I have not scrubbed the legislature however a control F of the document returned 0 hits when homosexual, gay, or same sex are used as guide words.

1) Post 10.  

2) 

Quote:Biological sex. – The physical condition of being male or female, which is 36 stated on a person's birth certificate.

Quote:Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. – Public agencies 10 shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only 11 used by persons based on their biological sex

Quote:...in no event shall that accommodation result in 15 the public agency allowing a person to use a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility 16 designated under subsection (b) of this section for a sex other than the person's biological sex

Quote:It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of 24 all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on 25 account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers 26 which regularly employ 15 or more employees

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2016, 09:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1) Post 10.  

2) 

As I said it appears to be solely directed toward the Gender identification bathroom measure. Or as Sunset called it The bathroom bill, before he was "corrected",

I don't see how this affects the Gay community at all or discriminates against them as the good folks at The New Civil Rights Movement pointed to. But it seemed to be enough to get a few here spun up. 

[GMDino]

(03-23-2016, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said it appears to be solely directed toward the Gender identification bathroom measure. Or as Sunset called it The bathroom bill, before he was "corrected",

I don't see how this affects the Gay community at all or discriminates against them as the good folks at The New Civil Rights Movement pointed to. But it seemed to be enough to get a few here spun up. 

I wouldn't expect a bill that says no locality can pass a non-discrimination bill, or raise wages to be seen as discriminating at all.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2016, 09:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wouldn't expect a bill that says no locality can pass a non-discrimination bill, or raise wages to be seen as discriminating at all.  

Well I just control F "non-discrimination" on the bill and got 0 results. As I said I have not scrubbed the bill and not sure if I ever will.  There very well be a clause in there that says a baker doesn't have to sell a gay a cupcake.

It just looks like maybe, just maybe the fine folks at NCRM might be a little biased and made more of the bill than it actually is. And maybe, just  maybe some folks in this forum fell inn line without knowing all the facts. 

I did find this when searching discrimination:

It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of 6 all individuals within the State to enjoy fully and equally the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 7 advantages, and accommodations of places of public accommodation free of discrimination 8 because of race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex, provided that designating 9 multiple or single occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities according to biological sex, as 10 defined in G.S. 143-760(a)(1), (3), and (5), shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination.

There were also measure spelled out on how to report discrimination.

[GMDino]

(03-23-2016, 09:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I just control F "non-discrimination" on the bill and got 0 results. As I said I have not scrubbed the bill and not sure if I ever will.  There very well be a clause in there that says a baker doesn't have to sell a gay a cupcake.

It just looks like maybe, just maybe the fine folks at NCRM might be a little biased and made more of the bill than it actually is. And maybe, just  maybe some folks in this forum fell inn line without knowing all the facts. 

I did find this when searching discrimination:

It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of 6 all individuals within the State to enjoy fully and equally the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 7 advantages, and accommodations of places of public accommodation free of discrimination 8 because of race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex, provided that designating 9 multiple or single occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities according to biological sex, as 10 defined in G.S. 143-760(a)(1), (3), and (5), shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination.

There were also measure spelled out on how to report discrimination.

I shared a news story...from a NC station.

Feel free to read it and watch the video.

The GOP in NC is just doing the work of god.

No discrimination as long as you just do what their god wants.  Then there is no problem at all.  

[SunsetBengal]

Well, it seems as HB 2 had support of up to 73% of the citizens of NC.

http://http://www.wral.com/wral-news-poll-voters-back-bonds-want-action-on-charlotte-transgender-ordinance-/15499325/

Quote:She is among the 36 percent of respondents to a recent WRAL News poll who said that the General Assembly should act to overturn Charlotte's ordinance. Another 30 percent said lawmakers should let voters in Charlotte decide by declaring a Mecklenburg County referendum on the issue. Only 27 percent of those surveyed said legislators should leave the ordinance alone, with 8 percent saying they were unsure.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/wral-news-poll-voters-back-bonds-want-action-on-charlotte-transgender-ordinance-/15499325/#hJFMB8uE67C9AadG.99

Apparently, the legislators of NC care about carrying out the will of the majority of their constituents.  Ordinances like the recently overturned on in Charlotte throw the will of the majority aside, to cater to the wishes of a very, very small minority section of society.  Now, I'm no cold hearted jackass.  I don't want to force anyone not comfortable with going into the assigned restroom for their birth gender, into doing so.  I just feel that there are better ways to go about this.  For example, many establishments have a "family" restroom.  Why not introduce legislation to mandate that all business created, moving forward, be required to have a 3rd, non gender assigned, public restroom facility?

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2016, 09:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, it seems as HB 2 had support of up to 73% of the citizens of NC.

http://http://www.wral.com/wral-news-poll-voters-back-bonds-want-action-on-charlotte-transgender-ordinance-/15499325/

Apparently, the legislators of NC care about carrying out the will of the majority of their constituents.  Ordinances like the recently overturned on in Charlotte throw the will of the majority aside, to cater to the wishes of a very, very small minority section of society.  Now, I'm no cold hearted jackass.  I don't want to force anyone not comfortable with going into the assigned restroom for their birth gender, into doing so.  I just feel that there are better ways to go about this.  For example, many establishments have a "family" restroom.  Why not introduce legislation to mandate that all business created, moving forward, be required to have a 3rd, non gender assigned, public restroom facility?

I'm still looking for the part where all North Carolina's LBGT non-discrimination ordinances have been voided. 

WTS, I'd be down with a third Gender Neutral facility, Hell I'd just go in there just to leave the seat up and make women of all sexes mad. 

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't see how this affects the Gay community at all or discriminates against them as the good folks at The New Civil Rights Movement pointed to. But it seemed to be enough to get a few here spun up. 

And I don't see why a business owner would claim that her "religious beliefs" keep her from serving anyone from the LGBT community when not all of them are gay.

So BOTH sides are guilty of using the terms "LGBT" and "gay" interchangeably.

But despite Bfines hang up with semantics (surprise!) it is still sad that the State General Assembly supports discrimination against members of the LGBT community.