N.C. Gov. McCrory signs into law bill restricting LGBT protections

Charlotte Observer ^ | 3/23/2016 | Steve Harrison

[Nextrush]

RALEIGH-The N.C. General Assembly on Wednesday approved a bill that invalidates Charlotte's new legal protections for LGBT individuals, doing far more than striking down a controversial provision that allowed transgendered people to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify. Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law hours later.

The vote in the House was 84-25 after three hours of debate, with all Republicans voting for it and 11 Democrats breaking ranks with their party to support the bill.

In the Senate, the vote was 32-0 after the Democrats walked out in protest, saying they had not been allowed to participate in the process.

"We witnessed an affront to democracy," said Democratic Sen. Dan Blue of Raleigh, the minority leader. "We will not be silent."

Last year in Indiana, there was a nationwide uproar over a "Religious Freedom" law that critics said would make it easy for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Critics of the North Carolina bill, which passed in a one-day special session, said it was perhaps the most 'anti LGBT legislation' in the nation.

Dana Fenton, the city of Charlotte's lobbyist, said the bill would invalidate the city's newly expanded nondiscrimination ordinance, passed 7-4 in a City Council vote in February. He said he believes the state's largest employers would have lobbied the governor to veto it.......

State Rep. Dan Bishop, a Charlotte Republican who sponsored the bill, said the legislature likely would not have convened had Charlotte passed a nondiscrimination ordinance that included protections for LGBT individuals but didn't allow for the bathroom flexibility......

But asked why the bill does more than strike down the bathroom flexibility, Bishop said it made sense to keep the state in line with the protected classes recognized by the federal government...

[Samwell Tarly]

Will we see necrophiliacs screaming about their rights being violated because they are refused entry to funeral homes?

[ZULU]

I don’t support allowing perverts to use women’s toilettes. The whole article is confusing and difficult to interpret.

[Vigilanteman]

The whole article is SUPPOSED TO BE confusing and difficult to interpret.

How else are the perverts in charge going to show their superiority over us mere "breeders"?

[Neoliberalnot]

This won’t sit well with the queers, same sex child molesrors, the genitally mutilated, and the coprophiliacs. All they need is one faggot blackrobe to throw it out.

[jsanders2001]

> The question is more “How can we allow men dressed as women to use the women’s restroom without opening women’s facilities to all men?”. In short, you cannot.

The homo foot tappers no longer have to tap for (ugh) "consensual" sex; they can just wait in the bathroom for young kids to rape. We know that they know this is the intended result. Makes you want to wait in one of the stalls with a shotgun.

[jsanders2001]

> You are aware that homosexuals can already access bathrooms where boys are present. So, what is changing in your view?

Its incrementalism and The pandering of our the government to these pervert’s every want and need. It emboldens them and their homosexual behavior. In saner times, the Homos wouldn’t dare molest a boy if they thought a male guardian was nearby. Now they’re trying to normalize / condition people to this mental illness to make it acceptable in our society so they engage in their lurid behavior anytime and anywhere they want. Soon they will feel it is their “right” to molest the children if we continue down this path.

[jsanders2001]

> You are aware that homosexuals can already access bathrooms where boys are present. So, what is changing in your view?

Its incrementalism and the pandering of our the government to these pervert’s every want and need. It emboldens them and their homosexual behavior. In saner times, the Homos wouldn’t dare molest a boy if they thought a male guardian was nearby. Now they’re trying to normalize / condition people to this mental illness to make it acceptable in our society so they engage in their lurid behavior anytime and anywhere they want. Soon they will feel it is their “right” to molest the children if we continue down this path.

[tarheelswamprat]

You’d think that with the transgender bathroom nonsense thee’d would be fear of lawsuits filed against the municipalities for setting up an environment conducive to sexual crimes involving children and females but NO allowing the pansexuals / transgenders access to the same bathroom space is more important than the possibility of your children or spouse getting raped or molested.

What happened to sanity?

The same mental disease that killed "Common Sense" also infected "Sanity"...

[i_robot73]

>BUT WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE FEDERAL COURTS FORCE THE ISSUE OF TRANGENDER ACCESS TO LOCKER ROOMS AND RESTROOMS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR GENDER INDENTITY?

Tell ‘em to pound sand (I’d type what I really feel, but I want to come back some day).

“keep the state in line with the protected classes recognized by the federal government”

When you have ‘protected class(es)’ you no longer have equality, let alone under Law. As such, it should be null/void on its face.

[NKP_Vet]

The NC Republican controlled legislature also passed a bill last year protecting Confederate memorials. McCrory signed it into law.

[Nextrush]

As always the MSM must avoid and obfuscate the real issue on the table for opponents of the Charlotte ordinance, which was protection of restrooms and locker rooms from predators operating under their ‘gender identity’.

[ZULU]

I have had it with the homosexual agenda.

[Gritty]

I hail the legislature and Governor of my State for standing up for biology, morality, modesty, and common sense and against the LGBT perversions against nature and God.

[boop]

"It’s males gaining access to women’s facilities. Surely, you remember when a man displaying his penis to a woman or girl was a crime."

Yes. Notice that the outcry is only ONE way.

No woman wants to have a dude flopping his junk around in the women's locker room.

No dad/husband wants his daughters exposed to flashers either.

And WHY is that not illegal?

It would be illegal to sext someone a pic of your penis, but legal to do it in real life? WTF?

As for a woman using the men's room, nobody really cares.

It happens at concerts and sporting events when the women's line is too long.

[AppyPappy]

Let’s toss another spanner into the works.

Liberals believe that the state should not require a Muslim woman or girl to show her face because of her religious views on modesty BUT they should have to share a bathroom with a man.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Actually, 30% (11 of 37) state house Democrats voted for the bill (and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of those 11 were black Democrats; it was in the state senate that all of the Democrats whined and stomped their feet and walked out rather than cast their votes.

[kcvl]

Dan Bluer

[AuH2ORepublican]

OK, looked up the roll call. Eleven NC House Democrats voted for the bill to prevent Charlotte or any other localities from adopting pro-transgender ordinances, and a majority of those House Democrats (six out of eleven) are black. Those 11 Democrats were 29.7% of the Democrats that voted on the measure (if one counts Democrat-turned-independent Paul Time—who voted against the bill despite his avowed conservatism—as a Democrat; if Tine is not counted as a Democrat, then 30.6% of house Democrats that cast a vote supported the bill).

Here’s the roll call: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2015E2&sChamber=H&RCS=9

And here are NC’s state representatives:
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House

It was in the state senate that whiny Democrats walked out instead of voting for or against the bill.