Question for Mayor Emmanuel - should a local government be allowed to pass additional protections for conservatives, hetero individuals or Christians? (Think Portland bakers...). If not, why not? Shouldn't we all have the same rights? If not, why not?
The most logical response to this asinine, pandering policy is in the comments section of the story:
(Submitted by Rational Thinker)
On Friday, I looked at HB 141 from the standpoint of individual liberty (Is the HB2 "Repeal" Bad Legislation?).
Today, we're assessing Mark Creech's article What’s Been Lost in the Repeal of HB 2, As I See It.
Dr. Creech's points and my comments on them:
Weak — The idea that transsexuals are not allowed in the other sex's facilities was precisely the claimed reason for Charlotte's ordinance. Not allowed by what? Laws. Local government is the best, most responsive and representative government. The NCGA should not attempt to legislate every conceivable, potential, perceived wrong.
2. HB 2 blocked local governments from requiring “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) policies for those who wanted to contract business with them. Roy Cooper contends cities and county governments are now free to apply such requirements. HB 2 had removed all doubt that these laws were invalidated. This is no longer the case.
Reasonable — I'm not aware of such policies heretofore, but they are undoubtedly one of the arrows in the "social justice warriors'" quiver.
3. HB 2 blocked “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) provisions from being added to local nondiscrimination laws relating to private employment practices and regulation of public accommodations. The new law, HB 142 – Reset of SL 2017-4, prohibits any such ordinances from being passed until December of 2020; but after that date, any local governments would be free to enact provisions like those passed in Charlotte in February of 2016.
Reasonable — You know this coming. North Carolina is "purple" state, meaning it's not solidly Republican and can potentially be swung to the left. These assaults are coming.
4. Because of their opposition to HB 2, the NCAA, business interests, and other groups have held our state’s economy hostage to its demands. Repealing HB 2 likely emboldens them, as well as possibly others, for additional acts of extortion, which may or may not be related to HB 2.
No and Yes — NC's economy has been growing, not hostage, despite a few boycotts. However, Dr. Creech point is clearly true: The NCGA's move is a Chamberlain-like capitulation to the (truly) radical Left. The NCAA may shut up and hold games in NC, but "peace in our time" didn't materialize and the fascist conquering machine is gearing up.
5. By repealing HB 2, the state loses the moral high ground it established. Repeal introduces doubt as to HB 2’s intent and rightness from the beginning. As N.C. Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has said, “Such ambiguity undercuts the legitimacy of the law.” HB 2 was reasonable and common sense legislation.
Absolutely! — Clear definitions are critical rule of law. "I'm a woman because I say I am on the inside" is asinine.
6. In repealing HB 2, North Carolina has forfeited its leadership in its stand against the redefinition of sex and gender. HB 2 has always been about much more than bathrooms. Its core issue is the way our culture will ultimately define sex and gender.
Reasonable — It's unclear how critical this is, but other states DID begin to rally behind NC's lead.
(Submitted by Rational Thinker)
Liberty. The practical meaning of the word is that you don't have to like me or what I choose to do with my property (which includes my body, thoughts, money, business, etc.), you just may not infringe on my rights; you may not dictate to me what I shall and shall not do with my property.* You may not dictate what I eat, what sex I think I am, my religious beliefs, and an almost endless list of other personal, adult decisions I make for and about myself. By extension, neither does the government that represents you.
This newest iteration of the "Bathroom Bill" still protects private citizens from the dictates of local governments as to whom may use their restrooms, changing rooms and showers. This was always the fly in the soup. Charlotte's ordinance dictated to private citizens that they must open their facilities to anyone "identifying" as a particular "gender," regardless of the sex organs they actually have. Some believe the General Assembly should have left the matter to the courts, but as this was a clear, unmitigated violation of private property rights, I don't believe the citizens of Charlotte should be forced to "fight city hall" and incur the huge legal bills that would necessarily generate. Sparring citizens from that was an appropriate and good use of state legislative power. After all, the primary responsibility of elected officials is protect the rights of citizens. That is the standard, not whether you can afford to go to and win in court.
This seems clear but if you disagree I urge you to explain your thinking in the "Comments" section.
What are others saying on this issue?
*of course we're talking about competent, adult citizens and decisions that don't infringe the rights of others
Is transgenderism a real thing or just a mental illness? I don't know. Nobody actually knows because there is currently no proof one way or the other. I suspect that like most things in nature there probably are people for whom something went wrong at some point, but that is irrelevant when it come to who goes into which restroom, shower or changing room. To her credit, Ms. Quintrall was able to admit her wrong. When faced with the results of her politically correct support for letting self-described "transgender" men into the ladies room, she realized that law must depend on more than simply the honor system.
Read Liberal Mom Aghast as Huge Guy Wearing Lakers Jersey Walks Into Ladies’ Room
There are some truths about this transsexual/transgender issue:
Moore Tea Citizens is neither "pro-transsexual" nor "anti-transsexual." Our personal beliefs—as individual members—about sexual identity and orientation (two separate subjects) run the gamut of possible views. MTC confines its activities to matters of the fundamental American liberty that protects the rights of the individual. "Rights" are those things afforded a person a person by God (or natural law) that do not depend person to provide, and which do not infringe on the rights of others. Where the latter aspect becomes ambiguous, it is up to