by Miriam Chu
This whole messy hysteria began with the town Council of Charlotte passing a very poorly thought-out law ordinance. Please read it. The people condemning HB2, by and large, have not read HB2. Let's not be guilty of the same ignorant condemnation in respect to the Charlotte ordinance.
The most alarming part of the Charlotte ordinance to the general public is the striking of any exceptions to the new rule, which allows access by individuals based on which "gender they identify with," to all facilities. In Section 3, the following wording was stricken:
This whole messy hysteria began with the town Council of Charlotte passing a very poorly thought-out law ordinance. Please read it. The people condemning HB2, by and large, have not read HB2. Let's not be guilty of the same ignorant condemnation in respect to the Charlotte ordinance.
The most alarming part of the Charlotte ordinance to the general public is the striking of any exceptions to the new rule, which allows access by individuals based on which "gender they identify with," to all facilities. In Section 3, the following wording was stricken:
"Sec. 12-59. - Prohibited sex discrimination.
(a) It shall be unlawful to deny a person, because of sex, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a restaurant, hotel, or motel.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities which are in their nature distinctly private.
(2) YMCA, YWCA and similar types of dormitory lodging facilities.
(3) A private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public.”
Come on, Charlotte! This is the age of the ubiquitous camera phone and massive paranoia about sexual assault, child abduction, molestation, date rape and general mistrust of anyone of the opposite sex, but especially adult males! Did you really believe an ordinance allowing anyone to use the private facility of their choice, based on whim, would be welcomed with open arms by the general public?
The truth is, most people feel insecure using public restrooms, dressing rooms and other facilities where they might be in a state of undress, even without those same facilities being open to members of the opposite sex.
My concern about HB2 is that it appears to strip away the right to judicial remedy in cases of damages caused by discrimination:
§ 143-422.3. Investigations; conciliations.
14 The Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration shall have the 15 authority to receive charges of discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity 16 Commission pursuant to an agreement under Section 709(b) of Public Law 88-352, as amended by 17 Public Law 92-261, and investigate and conciliate charges of discrimination. Throughout this 18 process, the agency shall use its good offices to effect an amicable resolution of the charges of 19 discrimination. This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a 20 statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based 21 upon the public policy expressed herein."
Though some kind of limitations on punitive lawsuits against those unwilling to participate in gay marriages or other activities, should be imposed because in America, no one should be forced to sacrifice their life savings or livelihood to protect their religious freedom. At the May 4th NCGOPE open house, House Speaker Tim Moore said that this is a misinterpretation, and that this apparent deficiency will be addressed by clarification of the bill's language in the current session.
Several weeks ago, I spoke at the NC Libertarian State Convention, as there was a resolution condemning HB2 on their agenda, I included this in my talk. I asked the audience for a show of hands as to who had read HB2, only one audience member raised his hand. How can someone condemn something they actually know nothing about?
(a) It shall be unlawful to deny a person, because of sex, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a restaurant, hotel, or motel.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities which are in their nature distinctly private.
(2) YMCA, YWCA and similar types of dormitory lodging facilities.
(3) A private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public.”
Come on, Charlotte! This is the age of the ubiquitous camera phone and massive paranoia about sexual assault, child abduction, molestation, date rape and general mistrust of anyone of the opposite sex, but especially adult males! Did you really believe an ordinance allowing anyone to use the private facility of their choice, based on whim, would be welcomed with open arms by the general public?
The truth is, most people feel insecure using public restrooms, dressing rooms and other facilities where they might be in a state of undress, even without those same facilities being open to members of the opposite sex.
My concern about HB2 is that it appears to strip away the right to judicial remedy in cases of damages caused by discrimination:
§ 143-422.3. Investigations; conciliations.
14 The Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration shall have the 15 authority to receive charges of discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity 16 Commission pursuant to an agreement under Section 709(b) of Public Law 88-352, as amended by 17 Public Law 92-261, and investigate and conciliate charges of discrimination. Throughout this 18 process, the agency shall use its good offices to effect an amicable resolution of the charges of 19 discrimination. This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a 20 statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based 21 upon the public policy expressed herein."
Though some kind of limitations on punitive lawsuits against those unwilling to participate in gay marriages or other activities, should be imposed because in America, no one should be forced to sacrifice their life savings or livelihood to protect their religious freedom. At the May 4th NCGOPE open house, House Speaker Tim Moore said that this is a misinterpretation, and that this apparent deficiency will be addressed by clarification of the bill's language in the current session.
Several weeks ago, I spoke at the NC Libertarian State Convention, as there was a resolution condemning HB2 on their agenda, I included this in my talk. I asked the audience for a show of hands as to who had read HB2, only one audience member raised his hand. How can someone condemn something they actually know nothing about?
