Posted on 03/05/2015 7:02:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The city council of Charlotte, N.C., the hometown of world-renowned Evangelist Billy Graham, narrowly voted on Monday to reject a proposed expansion to the town's non-discrimination law that would have made it legal for transgender persons to use bathrooms and other public facilities designated for the opposite sex.
After hearing four hours of public input from supporters and opponents of the proposal Monday evening, the council voted, 6-5, after an hour of discussion, to throw out the entire ordinance bill.
The proposal would not just have given transgenders the right to use the opposite gender's restrooms but would have also made it illegal for Charlotte business owners to decline service in order to uphold their Christian beliefs that same-sex marriages is wrong.
"The Charlotte City Council made the right decision ... A big thank you to the council members who stood against this proposition," Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and President of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse humanitarian organization, told the Charlotte Observer.
Rev. Mark Creech, director of the North Carolina Christian Action League, told The Christian Post that although he and many other Christians in Charlotte are happy that the council decided to strike down the bill, he admits that he did not expect the council to full-out reject the entire proposal.
"We were delighted to see that the measure failed," Creech said. "Many of us were really surprised that it went that way. We anticipated that the ordinance would likely succeed or an amended ordinance would succeed that excluded the bathroom provision but the entire ordinance failed."
According to The Charlotte Observer, over 40,000 emails were sent to the city council from supporters and opponents on the issue, while 120 people had registered to speak on the issue at the Monday council meeting. Before a vote on the ordinance occurred, the council voted, 9-2, to remove the transgender bathroom requirement from the legislation.
Creech was thoroughly pleased with the amount of churches and clergy that voiced their opposition to the bill and made it clear that such an ordinance would put women and children in danger.
"I was glad to see so many churches and pastors who were engaged in the process and came and spoke against the ordinance," Creech explained. "I haven't seen that kind of participation on the part of the church on some of these issues since the marriage amendment was voted on in North Carolina almost three years ago. That was delightful to see."
Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the statewide social conservative organization North Carolina Values Coalition, praised the council's decision as a victory for protected religious liberties in Charlotte, as many Christian florists and bakers in other areas of the U.S. have faced stiff legal consequences for their faithful refusal to service same-sex weddings.
"We applaud the community leaders and citizens of Charlotte for speaking out against a dangerous ordinance that would have compromised the safety of the city's public restrooms and the religious liberty of Charlotte's business owners," Fitzgerald said in a press statement. "The Charlotte City Council made the right decision in voting against unnecessary proposed changes to the city's nondiscrimination policy. We will continue to fight these proposals across the state wherever they might pop up."
City councilman Kenny Smith, who voted against the proposal, said the partisan proposal was largely shaped by the Washington D.C.-based LGBT organization Human Rights Campaign and a local group called the Mecklenburg LGBT Political Action Committee.
"I think if it's passed, it would be a clear message to the city that the city council has voted to impose the progressive left's view of morality on the majority of our citizens," Smith said, according to The Christian Examiner.
Although the council struck down the ordinance, Creech does not believe the non-discrimination ordinance battle has concluded in Charlotte or North Carolina.
"I would caution that I am concerned that the issue may not be over. A vote that close, 6-5, may mean that somehow or another that the council will come back together to try it again." Creech said. "One of the things that I said to our supporters on a Facebook post was that we rejoice in that decision by the council that religious liberties are still protected and we are thankful that women and young girls are out of harms way."
male is a male and female is a female and if they think otherwise they need to seek mental help.
“non-discrimination law that would have made it legal for transgender persons to use bathrooms and other public facilities designated for the opposite sex.”
It truly amazes me how “non-discrimination” laws are abused. I think this leads to what insurance companies have termed “moral hazards”. Those who promote activism such as this are either fools who refuse to acknowledge that certain people will seek to abuse the privilege, such as perverts, or fools that actively seeks to overthrow the moral order. Now, I have heard that Europe has always done this and they have allowed in people that take advantage of it.
Sadly, the homosexual agenda is gaining strength. It’s not about rights, but more about dictating policy and the rules/laws. Sexual perversion and sexual immorality are accelerating here in the US. Soon we will be known as the New Sodom, and the President will be known as the King of Sodom. What a world legacy we are leaving behind
All these “SUGGESTIONS” that are coming out of these LGBT crowd is verging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Understand this, these people, like the liberals, socialists and communists will never be satisfied with anything except complete surrender to their cause. So, how do we treat these people? IGNORE THEM. DO NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING THEY “SUGGEST”. THEY CAN LIVE THEIR LIVES ANY WAY THEY CHOOSE, BUT LEAVE US ALONE, TO LIVE OUR LIVES THE WAY WE CHOOSE ALSO
What really surprised me recently was learning that men don’t want women in the men’s room, either! Of course there are exceptions, but it seems that men want privacy also.
I was at a public place of entertainment when a couple of women decided to check out the men’s room. Some of the men who were present, promptly marched into the men’s room and escorted the ladies OUT. They were very polite about it, but firm.
I found that interesting, and was surprised as well as pleased to see that there are some men like that.
Yes, that’s true - along with privacy issues. This is just another leftist assault on women.
Don’t worry, a federal judge will soon cram it down their throats.
The key to winning the vote is to bring women and children in burkahs. They don’t have to say anything but the liberals will take notice.
What?!? You mean men aren’t in danger if a woman in jeans and a flannel shirt goes into the men’s room?
Hell yes men are in danger if women go into the men’s restroom.
If they holla ‘rape’ - a man is going to jail that day !
Simply require those with a penis to use one facility, those without to use another one....why is that so difficult???...Never mind labeling them, just the equipment will do. You discriminate against noone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.