Trans

North Carolina Poised to Legislatively Undo Charlotte's LGBT Discrimination Protections (UPDATE: Passes in Senate)

Bathroom panic strikes again.

|

Restroom
Credit: JD Hancock / photo on flickr

Today North Carolina's House passed a bill that would stop Charlotte from implementing an ordinance prohibiting some discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, set to take effect at the start of April.

Blame transgender bathroom panic, though the bill that is being implemented appears to actually prohibit much broader protections. Charlotte's law prohibited discrimination in housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This meant that transgender people would be able to use the restrooms of their expressed sex, not necessarily their biological sex.

Religious conservatives argued again that this would lead to men posing as transgender in order to prey on women and girls in restrooms. Even though there's no evidence this happens, enough have found the argument convincing enough to undo regulations in places like Houston, Texas.

This state bill in North Carolina does a lot more than just overturn Charlotte's law. It does so by forbidding cities from passing many other labor regulations that may be more strict or require more of many employers than what the state requires in areas like minimum wages and benefits.

It also essentially reverses the direction of accommodation in some ways for transgender folks. It doesn't just undo Charlotte's law. It prohibits individuals in both school districts and public government agencies from using the bathroom of any sex other than what is listed on one's birth certificate, the primary exception being a single stall unisex bathroom.

The legislation made available appears to only apply this rule to public agencies and schools. Private businesses appear to be able to decide on their own how (or if) to approach transgender accommodation. At least, then, companies and businesses are not in the position to have to "police" their bathrooms either way.

The North Carolina House voted 83-25 to pass the bill. It is expected to be rushed over to the state Senate for a vote today. (Update: It passed the Senate 32-0 after Democrats walked out on the session. Read more here.)

It's frustrating to attempt to look at this issue from a libertarian perspective because it doesn't really seem like either side in this particular culture war has any interest in separating government accommodation of individuals and the private sector. It ends up being all or nothing. Transgender and gay people should expect that the government accommodate their gender expression and sexual orientation and treat them the same under the law, particularly in areas like schools where attendance is mandatory. If you're going to force transgender teens to go to your institutions, and you're going to take money from their parents to fund it, you can very well deal with it. In the private sector, though, there's no reason why cultural negotiation won't work just fine to deal with the situation, particularly since in all likelihood, people aren't even going to know when they're sharing a bathroom with a transgender person anyway.

And while I don't believe that it's necessary to expand public accommodation discrimination protection laws (mostly because so much of the public has come to accommodate LGBT voluntarily on their own), it should be a concern when a state tells individual cities what sort of laws it can and cannot pass. You don't have to agree with Charlotte's law to worry about what it means for the ability of citizens in a municipality have their local control of decision-making thwarted by the political power of representatives of other communities. If the citizens of Charlotte object to what their city leadership has done, it should be up to them locally to correct it, which is what happened in Houston.

Advertisement

NEXT: The FBI Might Not Need Apple's Decryption Help

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Unisex bathrooms, case closed.

    1. But only urinals. Because sitting to pee is a social construct.

      1. I think they should have unisex vacuum hoses, like on the space station.

          1. I expect some would have too much fun with this.

    2. The bathrooms.

      It’s always about those dammed bathrooms.

      1. “Those damn transgenders can just shit in their pants like the rest of us.”

        1. Depends for all!

    3. I don’t want to share a bathroom with women, and I fucking KNOW women don’t want to share bathrooms with men.

      So-called ‘transgender’ people will have to just fucking deal somehow. But a tiny minority of arguably insane people don’t get to turn our entire social order upside down.

      1. Well, I don’t want to share a bathroom with Republicans or Democrats. We need separate bathrooms, clearly.

        And obviously the “social order” would collapse if a woman went into a man’s bathroom. It’s just that important.

        I say that we just let the owners of the bathrooms decide how they should be used. The government should not interfere at all.

    4. Let private businesses run their bathrooms the way they want.

    5. Have you ever seen Men’s bathrooms in public places? Not sure what lady would want to deal with that.

  2. Transgender and gay people should expect that the government accommodate their gender expression and sexual orientation and treat them the same under the law, particularly in areas like schools where attendance is mandatory. If you’re going to force transgender teens to go to your institutions, and you’re going to take money from their parents to fund it, you can very well deal with it.

    Agreed. Like or it not, the wack-jobs have the same tax-paying right as the next person. Privatize education already.

    1. But the people who have sued in the past do not want mere acommodation, which might involve a compromise. They want to be treated exactly the way they want even if interferes with the acoomodations of the majority.

    2. Transgender and gay Devout Christian people should expect that the government accommodate their gender expression and sexual orientation prayer at public events and treat them the same under the law, particularly in areas like schools where attendance is mandatory. If you’re going to force transgender devout Christian teens to go to your institutions, and you’re going to take money from their parents to fund it, you can very well deal with it.

      1. Red herring.

        Students are free to pray in school all they want. What is prohibited is teachers leading prayers or pressuring students into prayer.

          1. So you link to an article that says what you want is already allowed and has been affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court.

            Meanwhile, the issue you were parodying, trans teens having access to bathrooms in school, is one that is frequently denied and has not been affirmed by any state Supreme Court.

            I don’t think this comparison is going in the direction you intended.

    3. Transgender and gay people should expect that the government accommodate their gender expression and sexual orientation and treat them the same under the law,

      Fair enough, but this in no way supports any kind of protected class treatment, public accommodation/anti-discrimination,or certainly any requirement that bathrooms be gender specific.

      Laws that are silent on gender issues pass this test, you know. It might get a little interesting if there is a law that mandates that nobody can have unisex bathrooms and/or that nobody can go into the bathroom for the other sex. But short of that, no special treatment at all sounds like equal protection to me.

    4. Like or it not, the wack-jobs have the same tax-paying right as the next person.

      Indeed they do. They have the same taxpaying right to go to the men’s bathroom, not the women’s bathroom, if they are legally a male.

      1. What’s the big deal? I don’t get it. They will be dressed as a woman and go into a stall. Probably no one will even notice and I bet they don’t want the attention. If I had a daughter and she was in the bathroom and a trannie walked in, I wouldn’t be bothered at all.

    5. If you’re going to force transgender teens to go to your institutions, and you’re going to take money from their parents to fund it, you can very well deal with it.

      except they are not forced to go to those institutions. There are private schools, there is homeschooling; gay teens are not the same as trans teens.

    6. Can’t you apply that same logic to non-trans people? If a straight person wants to express their sexuality by going in the opposite gender bathroom, why shouldn’t they have that right? Don’t they pay taxes too? As usual, the equal rights argument only seems to work for the group that complains the loudest and inspires the most sympathy.

      1. You are confusing gender and sexuality.

        1. Wouldn’t a straight person express their sexuality through the opposite sex? Where is the confusion, exactly.

          1. Also, even the PC SJW-approved definitions of those terms do not line up in a logical way with how they want gendered restrooms structured. You can have three individuals all with different gender and sexual identities who are supposed to be able to use the same restroom, because two out of three feel more comfortable with that arrangement and they identify with an approved group. If they dropped that identity tomorrow, they would no longer necessarily have the right to piss where they wanted. It’s basically arbitrary.

      2. This is exactly the point that people refuse to acknowledge. Of course if you say that people can choose their bathroom based on feelings then anybody can make that choice at any time. I want to see the court case where somebody tries to claim somebody isn’t transgender because of the overalls they were wearing.

        I don’t know what the answer is to this but Reason isn’t being honest about how things are developing in this area. There have been several instances recently where seemingly straight men have demanded access to female locker rooms and bathrooms. These seem to be mainly by people opposed to transgender accommodations and trying to make a point but they happened and raise legitimate questions about how the law can work. To ignore this is simply disingenuous.

        I’m not arguing against transgendered people and of course they have to use the bathroom and I’m not sure what the solution to this is in the end but it’s not simple, something I find Reason often tries to claim about many tricky issues.

      3. Quagmire approves. Chester the Molester as well.

      4. Is it really illegal to go in a bathroom for another sex in the usa ?

        In France I have occasionally went into girls bathroom (by mistake or because men’s bathroom were full) without any girl paying attention at all, does that make me a perv or a criminal ?

        Actually I think the opposite (girls in men’s bathroom) happens much often (less queue in general), and I don’t remember anyone even noticing it.

    7. Nope. A tiny minority of crazy people does not get to upend the social order for everyone else.

      There would literally be no end to the accommodation demands placed on the government by every niche interest group on the planet. This is all playing right into the special snowflake oppression victim mentality that is killing the country right now.

      1. No kidding. Trannies are a small subset of the tiny minority that are LGBT.

      2. I fail to see how this would affect the “social order” in any meaningful way.

  3. …transgender bathroom panic…

    Hmmmm…………
    Nope. Not going to finish that thought.

  4. it should be a concern when a state tells individual cities what sort of laws it can and cannot pass

    No. Why should a city be able to create crimes, torts and taxes ?

    1. Aren’t property taxes local?

      1. Authorized by the state. A municipality can raise taxes but they shouldn’t be able to create new ones on their own.

        1. Well, devolution has worked out swimmingly for the British, why not try it here?

          /sarc

        2. a lot of them do that, thought, usually through a public referendum process. I lived in NC for a good while and various projects went up for a public vote, to be paid for by things like a local option sales tax or a tax on restaurant meals, etc.

          1. The state typically sets the maximum allowable sales tax.

    2. Exactly. Cities and counties are not sovereign entities. They’re creatures of the state and have only the powers the state delegates.

  5. I am more worried about the NCDOT’s decision to put the 9 mph cushion myth to rest.

    The governor’s highway safety program is ramping up what’s being called “Obey the Sign or Pay the Fine” speeding enforcement crackdown.

    Apparently, there’s a belief out there that if the speed limit is 65, officers or troopers won’t pull you over if you’re doing 1 to 9 miles per hour over the limit – a so-called buffer zone.

    The DOT says that’s not the case. Law enforcement says beginning Thursday, they’ll target and ticket anyone driving above the posted speed limit.

    Time to shakedown the citizenry

    1. They should fight every ticket. No, Your Honor, I was going 61, not 63.

    2. My first case was “representing” someone in a traffic violation. Our boy was doing way more than he should have in a residential, but his dad was on cardiac medicine and was a bit of a hypochondriac.

      Turns out the officer hadn’t been trained on the new laser systems. Ticket was tossed.

    3. In other words, people started driving slower just like you said you wanted them to, but that cut into your revenue from tickets, so now you’re going to make them drive even slower.

      In similar news, Montgomery County (MD) is basically one giant speed camera zone (technically, they can only be within X distance of a school, but the county is littered with schools, especially elementary schools). Now, nearly everybody goes the speed limit. As a reward for their residents’ good behavior, the county has raised the fines.

      1. You in MD too? How do you like those white Jurassic Park jeeps hanging out around all the construction that isn’t happening? Makes me proud to see my lazy tax dollars protected by automation.

        1. What gets me is that the only places I’ve seen those jeeps is in “semi-permanent” construction areas; i.e. there are concrete Jersey barriers between the road and the workers. And most of the time, the workers are inside of 20-ton construction equipment, anyway.

          Then, there is the placement of the jeeps after everyone has gone home for the day. Yeah, I’m sure there’s lots of lives being saved when the last construction crew went home 2 hours ago, or at 2am on a Sunday.

      2. Driving through Maryland was the first time I encountered speed cameras on Waze. I didn’t even knew they were used in the US

        1. The state is definitely not uniform in that regard. Many people here are not happy about it, but Montgomery/PG/Howard/Baltimore Counties are always racing with each other to be more “progressive”.

      3. Montgomery county sucks but at least they aren’t DC. Those fuckers fines start at $150.00 for speeding which is highway robbery ($40.00 in MoCo).

        Although I prefer that the speed police are being replaced by cameras. A camera can’t keep me on the side of the road while they search my vehicle because I have long hair and listen to the Dead.

    4. Come down to Texas. We firmly believe in the cushion down here.

      1. You’re a hazard in TX if you’re not doing at least 5 over.

        1. For anyone not native to the area he’s not joking. Speed limit on the highways is 10 mph over the stated. Speed limit on roads below 50 mph is between 5 to 10 mph over stated (depending on if your driving through a speed trap town or not). Don’t go below this or you’ll piss everybody else off.

          1. Speed limit on roads below 50 mph is between 5 to 10 mph over stated (depending on if your driving through a speed trap town or not).

            I got nailed in some shithole town coming back from Lubbock one time. I was cresting a hill, and I was sure there was going to be a cop on the other side, so I slowed down to the speed limit. Sure enough, there he was, just waiting for me to creep 1mph over while going down this hill. I let off my brakes just a little, and his lights went on.

            Thankfully the jackass just warned me, but fuck that town.

          2. Call it an unfair stereotype if you want, but it’s Texas. I *expect* everyone to be pissed off.

          3. And we have at least one road with an 85 mph limit (SH 130 between Austin and Seguin).

    5. Where I live, the cops don’t usually bother with low hanging fruit like that, unless you piss them off some other way, or they’re on a fishing expedition. But we have lots of speeders going 15 over regularly. And the fines for that level of speeding is dramatically higher. So they figured it cuts into revenue generation to pull someone over for 5 over. Plus the cop would look like a total dick in court.

  6. “”””it should be a concern when a state tells individual cities what sort of laws it can and cannot pass”””

    What if the law the individual city passes is one which says that homosexuals can’t vote?

    Or if it says that homosexuals must be allowed to use your privately owned bathroom?

    1. Then the local residents should do what local residents have done all over America. Bring their city to court for unconstitutional laws.

      The state overriding the locality, not because of a matter of constitutionality, but because of preference, is a quite different bucket.

      1. The only reason you can sue municipalities, in general, is because they aren’t sovereign governments. The state telling the munis what to do follows from the fact that the munis exist at the discretion of the state.

        1. The context of the question was “should”, not “could”.

          1. If we were talking about “should” and not “could”, then laws about bathrooms would not even exist in the first place.

        2. Sorry, but that doesn’t compute… going further with your logic, if your statement is correct that municipalities must follow anything the State wishes, then it would also follow that since States only exist within the federal system, therefore any stupid preference the Feds have, States would be obligated to follow.

          Ever hear of unfunded mandates?

          Sorry, but that’s nonsense.

  7. This meant that transgender people would be able to use the restrooms of their expressed sex, not necessarily their biological sex.

    I express that I am a bird (“I am a bird”), so it’s OK if I shit on your front porch.

    1. And if i deny you the “right” to shit on my porch, I’m “Discriminating”

    2. I would’ve said freshly washed car, but…

    3. No, that would be expressly forbidden under Bird Law.

  8. Blame transgender bathroom panic, though the bill that is being implemented appears to actually prohibit much broader protections. Charlotte’s law prohibited discrimination in housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

    I thought Libertarians were against public accommodation laws? And I distinctly remember Scott assuring reason readers that Libertarians were going to part way with the gay lobby now that the debate has turned from gay marriage to public accommodation laws.

    Was that a lie Scott?

    1. RTFA, brah…

      It’s frustrating to attempt to look at this issue from a libertarian perspective because it doesn’t really seem like either side in this particular culture war has any interest in separating government accommodation of individuals and the private sector.

    2. They’re not “libertarians”

      Unless that means “maximally efficient statist utilitarian central planner” now.

    3. And you are also OK with a transgender using a women’s restroom, or would you like some kind of public accommodation law against that?

      1. Bathroom sheath room. How about the locker room at the high school? Or at the gym? If I were in high school and they had these laws, I would definitely insist on showering with the cheerleaders.

  9. Transgender and gay people should expect that the government accommodate their gender expression and sexual orientation and treat them the same under the law, particularly in areas like schools where attendance is mandatory. If you’re going to force transgender teens to go to your institutions, and you’re going to take money from their parents to fund it, you can very well deal with it.

    Same old thing. What do you mean by “treat them *the same*”? Is there a neutral principle that compels normal people (A) to associate with those who are not normal (B)? (Normal in statistical terms.) Simplified: government taxes those who go to schools for that very service. Why would not the majority get to decide how their funds are used? If they want toilets for themselves (A), that is one such use. They even let those who aren’t normal use their facilities, when they regulate (by biological sex, heteronormatively) where they could refuse association; they do more than they have to.

    “The” solution would be to offer a school for those who are not normal. But that’s not what those who are not normal want. They want to compel association. They demand to be included.

    1. Xavier’s School for Grafted Youngsters? Or, St. Mary’s School for the Genderfluid? Is that solution final?

      1. German schools steam students by aptitude. US schools can stream by tumblerism.

        1. Steam? I think they used poison gas.

          1. Only for the Jewish and Gypsy students.

    2. Why would not the majority get to decide how their funds are used?

      I don’t know. When you’re using stolen money, I’m not sure you have some inherent right to decide how it’s used. I certainly don’t think that the majority will necessarily make just decisions, either. The solution to this is to stop stealing money.

  10. I am enjoying the ongoing battle between Scott, Jesse and Ed for the Alt Text Championship.

  11. The big lie from the “lgbt” crowd is, and always has been: We just want to be left alone to live our lives peacefully.

    That is a lie. The vast majority of the “lgbt” Nazis demand you notice them, and celebrate their phony, laughable greatness. You WILL heap praise on their courage. You WILL march in their parades. You WILL be impressed with their sexual side.

    None of this has anything to do with sex or sexuality. It has everything to do with cultural exhibitionism, non-conformity, and hardcore political leftism.

    1. The gays are rapidly becoming boring normals thanks to a fast cultural shift toward accepting them. I think it’s a disaster. Soon there won’t even be parades for you to be forced to march in.

      1. which may well be why this trans thing is the new hot-button item. Because “look at us!!”

        1. And progtards need their wedge issues. Got to keep people divided based on identity politics.

          1. I initially read this as “progtards need their wedgies”.

      2. Posts like this one are the only reasons I think Tony is a real person and not a sockpuppet.

        1. I agree Tony is real. But is he truly a ‘person’?

    2. Bingo. If a person doesn’t care about LGBT issues xe will be made to care.

  12. Blame transgender bathroom panic, though the bill that is being implemented appears to actually prohibit much broader protections.

    Whaddayaknow: Overreach invites blowback. News at frickin’ 11.

  13. Can I claim I’m a woman if the men’s room is full and the women’s room is empty (an obvious hypothetical situation)?

    1. You can claim to be anything you want. Tell them you’re a lesbian half Vulcan half time lord trapped in a human make body. How the fuck can any of that be disproven?

  14. Let’s pursue this public accommodation demand a little further.

    If its a legal requirement that you accommodate a transgendered person by allowing them to go to the “other” bathroom because of their discomfort using “their” bathroom, what’s stopping a legal requirement that every public accommodation build additional bathrooms just for transgendered people, because of their discomfort in using cis-gendered bathrooms?

    The logic at work here has no stopping place. That should make you rethink your logic.

    1. Most logic has no stopping place. Logic can be merely a way to err with confidence.

    2. Progressive logic is that you shall ask permission for all things…

  15. San Diego airport has transgender bathrooms posted with some gobbledygook about gender expression.

    PHX has the same bathrooms labeled “family/handicapped”.

    1. I don’t see why this isn’t the solution. Call them what you want, but have one or two single occupant bathrooms that are for all comers. IIRC, my high school had that just because it was easier for folks in wheelchairs.

      1. Nope. It’s been offered countless times and the social justice mobs refuse it.

        Single-occupant bathrooms and showers are unacceptable to them because of the ‘othering’ effect it has on the tranny. They want to be right up in there with other people of the ‘same’ gender as what they feel they are. Anything less is basically fascism.

        Personally I vastly prefer single occupant bathrooms and choose them whenever I can. But then again I’m not trying to play out my sexual fantasies by pretending to be another gender.

        1. Progtards are using this to eliminate any trace of traditional values and sense of the nuclear family for our culture. They don’t actually give a shit about anyone. I’m sure if they thought it would somehow give them total power and crush conservatives, they would march every last gay, lesbo,mtranny, etc. into the ovens with glee. Same goes for minorities.

          These ‘protected’ groups are useful to the progs in their acquisition of power. Nothing more.

  16. it should be a concern when a state tells individual cities what sort of laws it can and cannot pass.

    It is not a concern when such limitations are meant to protect the rights of individual private property owners, Scott. I have no quarrel with private property owners who decide to build special restrooms for sexual deviates (and I don’t mean homosexuals.) I do have a quarrel with local city councils that pretend to tell private property owners what to do with their property.

  17. The law should simply make it clear that government-owned restrooms are assigned on the basis of biology, not “expressed sex” or any other social construct.

    1. Yep instead of Men’s and Women’s signs just put pictures of the required equipment on the wall…

  18. “In the private sector, though, there’s no reason why cultural negotiation won’t work just fine to deal with the situation […]”
    As long as it’s only one-way, right?

    I mean, Brandon Eich wants to forcibly divorce people against their will?? Totally a part of “cultural negotiation”. A gay programmer thinks Eich is an ass for that and doesn’t want to work for him anymore? CENSORSHIP.

    Sweet Cakes By Melissa wants to discriminate against faggots? Totally a part of “cultural negotiation”. The shop has so little foot-traffic customers that it closes the storefront? CENSORSHIP.

    The Duck Dynasty guy goes on about how gay people are horrible sinners? Groovy. Enough people call the network saying that guy is full of shit that his show gets pulled? CENSORSHIP.

    Face it, everytime gay people “win” in “cultural negotiation” it gets panned ’round here as double-plus ungood. It seems the only thing gay folk can do in this “cultural negotiation” is to be personally miffed, but they shouldn’t ever say anything about it to their friends or family, and they certainly shouldn’t change their buying behavior over it.
    ________
    ?A goal of Prop 8 was to divorce the couples that had gotten married before Prop 8 was approved.

    1. This is a thread about a law, in response to another law, not a “discussion” or a “cultural negotiation” or “buying behavior”.

      Learn to read, or STFU.

      1. If someone points to a “compromise” that they’ve repeatedly attacked, it’s totally appropriate to point out that, based on their behavior, they don’t actually find the “compromise” acceptable.

        That said, you had no problem engaging in a tangent discussion about speed limits above, so clearly you aren’t as much of a topic purist as you would have me believe.

        1. It is not you choice of topic but rather your rhetorical sleight of hand that I’m calling out.

        2. If someone points to a “compromise” that they’ve repeatedly attacked, it’s totally appropriate to point out that, based on their behavior, they don’t actually find the “compromise” acceptable.

          I dunno, maybe you could quote Shackford, instead of carrying on argument with the version of Shackford that exists only in your head.

    2. Sweet Cakes won’t bake faggot cookies? The hell you say!

  19. Really? No evidence this happens? http://m.washingtontimes.com/n…../?page=all

    1. Pointing at misbehaving straight guys as a reason to attack trans people?

      Yeah, that sounds legit.

      It’s about as persuasive as the “you have to stop gays from marrying or the straight people will stop having kids” arguments that were pushed in courts across the nation.

      Face it, if you have to point as straight people to explain why gay people are dangerous, you’re doing it wrong.

      1. trans ? gay

      2. He was responding to the assertion there is no evidence it happens. It happens, and there is evidence for it.

      3. It is an attack on transgendered public accommodation law as there is no objective standard to what defines a person as transgendered. So if someone wants to abuse the law, there is very little a business owner can do about it.

      4. It matters not. If the women in these restrooms prefer to relieve themselves without a man around, then they should have that choice regardless of how embarrassed a trans-person might be for having to use the men’s room instead. The way this is being discussed is completely ignoring their (the women’s) wants. So far it’s all about the transexuals and their feelings. Personally, I don’t really care if a transexual woman occcupies a stall while I’m using a urinal or another stall. But not everyone feels that way. There should be some discussion about the people most affected by this decision–and it’s not the transexuals.

        1. Check your privilege, Sir or Madam

      5. That isn’t the same thing at all.

  20. “This meant that transgender people would be able to use the restrooms of their expressed sex, not necessarily their biological sex.”

    It looks like MiniTru is attempting a revision here. I guess making a distinction between gender and sex is not working out too well politically so now we are calling “gender”, “expressed sex”. I guess because a lot of transgenders are still carrying their biological equipment means making distinctions on the basis of biological sex is still viable, so now we need to muddy up the waters.

    1. And plenty of guys would like to express themselves as people who like to shower with cheerleaders.

  21. The bill says that local governments can’t add to the obligations of private businesses under state anti-discrimination laws.

    The state antidiscrimination law is specifically amended to prohibit discrimination based on *biological* sex – that is, the sex on your birth certificate – and provides that if a business avoids such discrimination, then local governments can’t burden them with *additional* requirements that they accommodate men who think they’re women, or claim they think they’re women, and vice versa.

    To put it another way, private businesses are actually allowed to *decide for themselves* what do to if a male employee or customer says “I’m a woman,” or vice versa. They don’t have to deal with a whole local bureaucracy adding to the requirements already imposed on them by the federal and state “antidiscrimination” bureaucracies.

    Meanwhile, the bill provides that if the *government* operates multiple-user bathrooms, then there should be separate bathrooms for *biological* men and *biological* women. But you can have a single-user bathroom usable by either or all sexes.

    1. As far as going into special session to pass this bill – we’ve had the government go to extraordinary lengths to adopt fake-ass “gay rights” legislation – judicial opinions rewriting the constitution, harassment, doxing, denunciation, and firing of anyone who criticizes the gay activists – because gay rights must be adopted BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY and anyone harmed in the process is simply collateral damage.

      Now the activists are encountering opponents who take them as seriously as they take themselves. They should be flattered at the attention.

      1. I’ll assume you don’t have any Gay friends. But if you do, how do they respond when you say things like this to them?

  22. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

      1. STFU and VOTE TRUMP, ‘bot.

  23. “In the private sector, though, there’s no reason why cultural negotiation won’t work just fine to deal with the situation, particularly since in all likelihood, people aren’t even going to know when they’re sharing a bathroom with a transgender person anyway.”

    You DO realize you’re talking about a state in the heart of Jim Crow territory, right? And I submit for your consideration this story, which took place in the “tolerant” north: http://www.advocate.com/busine…..g-man-sues

    These protections are necessary in the private sector. Social negotiation isn’t going to get anywhere with these bigots.

  24. Let be honest here: if you didn’t know the person was trans, would it matter to you in anyway? No, it wouldn’t. But, some people just love being assholes to other people for no rational reason.

    1. Good that you just unilaterally dismiss other people’s concerns so easily. There is plenty of cause for concern. Maybe you should try listening for a change.

      1. Concern for what? “Rapists”? Tell me, do you believe that a law saying “gun free zone” stops shootings?

    2. just wondering does Mr. I mean Ms. Jenner still prefer women? Does she get to go to the ladies room?

  25. ” Even though there’s no evidence this happens, …”
    Only because we haven’t had enough transgender facilities to gain a statistic. But, I have no doubt, it would be a problem. Even one case, is a problem.
    Further, Sexuality is different than gender. Your gender is based on your package, not how you use it.
    Restrooms/Locker Rooms are assigned by Gender, not sexuality.
    I don’t think it’s asking too much that we keep such spaces assigned as we have.

    1. It isn’t. But progtards are not reasonable. Nor are they real people.

    2. I don’t think it’s asking too much that we keep such spaces assigned as we have.

      I think it’s asking way too much for government to get involved in potty issues. Bathroom facilities should be an entirely private issue, and businesses should be able to do what the hell they want.

    3. So what, exactly, is stopping a transgender person from doing what they’re accused of planning on doing right now?

  26. People seem to forget the other side of the coin. Biological sex only right? A few women now have seen that argument fly out the window when I showed them a picture of Buck Angel and asked if they’d honestly be comfortable when that walked into their ladies room. Not a chance they’re not way more uncomfortable, and not a chance you can simultaneously say that’s ok but women you actually have to check out in detail to figure out they’re really male aren’t. People seem to think cross-dressed men are the only members of the trans community. So for women to be completely ‘comfortable’ you’d have to make the policy “all biological males as well as biological females who appear to be men must use the mens room”, which is now even more wrong. Or maybe force transmen to yell ‘it’s ok there’s actually a vagina in my pants!’ after the freaked out woman yanking her little girl away from the bad man in the ladies room.

  27. I clicked an article link without checking and got brought to buzzfeed.

    All I learned today is that I now need to vet Reason links.

  28. If the citizens of Charlotte object to what their city leadership has done, it should be up to them locally to correct it, which is what happened in Houston.

    That’s an argument for mob rule, not a libertarian view. From a libertarian viewpoint, government should not be able to intrude into bathroom usage at all. Now, if state government prohibits local government from doing something government shouldn’t be doing in the first place, all things being equal, that’s probably a good thing.

  29. I would really appreciate it if someone could explain to me WHAT HARM TRANSSEXUALS SUFFER BY BEING FORCED TO PEE WITH OTHERS WHO LOOK LIKE THEM? The bathroom is not where I go to express my identity. And the devision of the sexes in multiperson bathrooms is to protect people’s sexual privacy. Even more so locker rooms. If I were magically transformed into a woman (and I’ve seen this in several movies) I would use the ladies room. Notwithstanding that I’m actually ,mentally, a man ,I would understand the rule is there so I don’t freak out others. Even libertarians (and I largely am one) should be able to put courtesy to others, ahead of a relatively trivial matter of self expression.

    1. Go google search “Buck Angel” (make sure safe-search is on).

      That’s who you’re arguing should be in the women’s room.

      1. I have an idea of what you speak of. I’ll take it on faith, and not execute that search. I suspect it’s something I would wish to unsee. Even with safe search on.

  30. I kept wondering –why buzzfeed?

    So I did some checking.

    The Charlotte LGBT ordinance was imposed by the city council a year after the citizens of Charlotte rejected it.

    Get that? The people of Charlotte chose–all on their own–their own course.

    And the city council decided that they knew better than those stupid voters.

    So–there’s a break for you, Scott–now you can denounce the city council’s imposition of way to much government interference in public accommodation laws without equivocation.

    1. It’s really sad when the Straight (i.e. heterosexual) majority rules that the civil rights that they take for granted should be denied to people who are Gay.

      1. Yeah, well when you find a law in NC that says gay people can’t use public toilets, then we can talk.

        1. What about a law that says colored can’t use certain water fountains?

      2. Gays aren’t being denied anything. Nice strawman though.

  31. my Aunty Avery got a fantastic metallic Audi Q5 just by working online with a computer
    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  32. The bathroom wars go on. But the example of LGBT accommodation in this piece of legislation is merely the most advertised example of the NC state legislature micromanaging local communities. Highlighted above were local laws for minimum wage and other employer requirements. But beyond that this NC legislature has prohibited local laws for zoning and growth ordinances, water usage, storm abatement, landfill and waste lagoon design and use.. All this done at the behest of developers and real estate interests and Duke Energy. They have also prohibited local governments from establishing their own broadband communication services. Obviously this was done at the behest of the cable and cell network lobby. That these companies will not extend coverage and service into rural areas seems to make no matter. This legislature also rewrote the calendar law for school years effectively enforcing a nine month schedule on school districts leaving the months of June through August as open. This was done at the behest of the tourism and real estate industries. So this is what you get when you allow “states rights” numbskulls to write the rules. The states have rights and you do not.

  33. I suggest a bathroom rule of “your dick (or functional equivalent) must be at least this |—- long to use the men’s room.” Wouldn’t that be a spectacular use of government resources? Think of the enforcement!

  34. Consider who has come out against this:
    1. The NFL – yeah because we all know they are a company that takes the moral highground
    2. The NBA – The same company that makes a pile of cash playing in China, one of the worst human rights offenders.
    3. Hollywood – It’s Hollywood

    I might be MORE convinced now that this bill is ok.

  35. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  36. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  37. So as a physical education teacher in junior or senior high how does one deal with a transgender in the locker room? All I see law suits.

  38. my roommate’s aunt scored 4214 dollars a week on the internet . She has been unemployed for 7 months but previous month her revenue was 14462 bucks just at work on the MacBook for some hours?AJ!21

    http://www.Aspire-jobs.com/?Gl…..g$98/h.php

  39. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.ReportMax90.com

  40. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  41. How is a law that let’s the owner of the bathroom decide for themselves a bad thing?

  42. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  43. Even though there’s no evidence this happens

    This seems a little dishonest. I didn’t think there was much history to have any evidence to begin with.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.