I remember when NC was about as progressive as it got for a Deep South state.

I'd get arrested because our state isn't crazy. If a guy wants to go into the girl's locker room, he needs to have his birth certificate amended after his gender reassignment surgery.

 

Meet former Republican Senator Larry Craig.

 

Hopefully you never will - watch out for politicians with a "wide stance" and be aware of Sea Bass looking for "man love."

DAMMIT! Somebody already stole my wide stance bit.

 

New York Times story

North Carolina Law May Risk Federal Aid

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.

Cutting off any federal money — or even simply threatening to do so — would put major new pressure on North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local protections for gay and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can use. A loss of federal money could send the state into a budget crisis and jeopardize services that are central to daily life.

Although experts said such a drastic step was unlikely, at least immediately, the administration’s review puts North Carolina on notice that the new law could have financial consequences. Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina had assured residents that the law would not jeopardize federal money for education.

But the law also represents a test for the Obama administration, which has declared that the fight for gay and transgender rights is a continuation of the civil rights era. The North Carolina dispute forces the administration to decide how aggressively to fight on that principle.

The North Carolina law created a mandatory statewide anti-discrimination policy, but it did not include specific protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law prohibits transgender people from using public bathrooms that do not match the sexes on their birth certificates.​

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S. Lewis

Also note that North Carolina law is now back to being the same as Kentucky law, yet it's North Carolina that stands to lose billions because they've drawn the attention of the punishers wielding the +5 hammer of vacuous moral outrage.

 

Well, fuck Kentucky, too.

 

Yeah, the idea that this law against gay and transgender rights could be shot down certainly points to power-happy moral busybodies somewhere.

 

The NC law isn't for the good of gay and transgender people, who were already getting along. It's to keep women from being shocked by hairy guys with penises hanging out in the ladies room, listening to their conversations. If ladies wanted that then they'd just use the men's room, now wouldn't they?

Instead of that pointless disaster, let's help people with monetary anxiety disorder that have panic attacks if they can't feel cash in their hand. Let's pass a law to prevent discrimination against them by allowing people afflicted with the malady to reach into bank tills, cash registers, or your wallet whenever they feel stressed. As everyone knows, people with monetary anxiety disorder do not commit crimes, so what harm could come from such a law? It would help people.

 

That much is clearly true.

 

It's for the good of the 50+% of North Carolina citizens who don't want a guy hanging out in the ladies room.

 

Except that's not happening, at all.

 

That's not all the law did. Otherwise the Fed wouldn't be threatening to pull funding.

 

Yes, that's pretty much all the law did. It says local municipalities can't set their own discrimination laws, which is a very common stance in the states. It prevents people from having a patchwork of rights. Do you know what all your local ordinances are? Does anyone? Suppose those covered your fundamental rights? Suppose you had a different set of rights in the next town over?

So many states, such as mine, limit local ordinances on to things that aren't best addressed at the state level, in part because the people who are elected to city council are often hardly qualified to be officers in their high-school class. The last girl that I talked to running for our city council was a dental hygienist. They tend to want to do wacky things instead of worrying about sewer, gas, and electric, along with sidewalks and sewers.

So North Carolina did what many states do, for the same reason, to establish the same standards that have happily applied in my state and many other states for many, many decades. But they bucked the narrative, and for that they must be punished, perhaps by cutting off all their school funding, welfare payments, and stripping them of Medicaid and Medicare.

 

Great. So you say "that's pretty much all the law did", and then went on to explain exactly how that's not all the law did.

A law abolishing all local anti-discrimination laws and minimum wages is not "pretty much" the same as a law saying people born little boys must use the little boys room.

Yay Big Government!

 

One of the reasons we wrote the Constitution is that the Articles of Confederation created a patchwork that caused confusion. The same applies to the states. They're states, not Greek city-states.

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

The word "city" doesn't appear anywhere in there.

 

They would be the men with vaginas. Butch girls have always been welcome in the ladies room. They grew up using it.

Or just look at how things operated prior to the meddling. Women decided who was allowed in the ladies room. If some obvious guy walked in there and the women took offense, they could run him out, or call security and the police and have him removed. But if someone was trans enough to fit right in then the women of the ladies room, having no problem with it, would happily let them in. The ultimate decision was up to the women in the ladies room.

Under the new law the women have no say. They can't throw out someone with a penis because it would be a civil rights violation. They could be sued, as could any private security or police officers who complied with their wishes, as if they were still trying to throw out a black person from a white restroom in this day and age. The officers would likely lose their jobs.

So whereas women had been allowed to select which trans people are allowed in the ladies room, that power has been stripped from them. They can't even throw out drunk men with hairy chests and full beards - because it might be violating trans rights.

So as usual, the left resorts to denouncing such women as bigots - because a bigot is a women who is wildly uncomfortable with allowing a strange bearded derelict to share the bus-station bathroom with her at 2:00 AM.

 

I get it. You're all for bigger government.

 

Generally speaking, most transwomen who have penises hate the fact that they have them. They're not going to be running into the bathroom waving it around and going "Heeeyyyyy, everybody! Lookit mah PENIS! Woooo-ee!"

 

But again, actual transgendered people aren't the problem, just as people with monetary anxiety syndrome aren't a problem. The problem is caused when you pass a law stripping people of the right to determine for themselves who is allowed in the bathroom, or whose hands are allowed in the cash register, when nobody can prove that someone isn't actually trans or afflicted with monetary anxiety syndrome.

In the absence of such a law the clerks keep unauthorized hands out of the till and the women in the bathroom can remove people who don't belong there. In the presence of the law nobody has the power to do anything because they'll be sued. So the drunken derelict in the bus station will wander into the ladies room at 2:00 AM and wait for a woman to throw a fit and the metro cops to drag him out. The next day he shows up at the court house wearing a nice dress to file a $5 million dollar civil rights suit. He wins. Officers are put on suspension. The other homeless people catch on to the trick (which they eventually will do), and soon the officers refuse to do anything. And they keep refusing, and women start avoiding public restrooms because they frequently have a homeless man looking to win the SJW lottery.

Note that the trans people aren't involved in any of it. They're avoiding the bathroom too, and keeping a low profile because of the headlines about all the homeless "trans" men acting sketchy in the ladies bathrooms. So then bars start building "members only" bathrooms so the girls can pee.

We didn't have a problem, we made a problem, and North Carolina is fixing the fix that could cause all the probolems.

 

Honestly, I don't see why the bathroom thing is getting all the attention. I think if I were LGBT, I'd be more concerned about the whole "LGBTs can be discriminated against, and there's nothing a local government can do about it" thing. The bathroom thing seems like small potatoes to me.

 

It's not the local government's job to handle people's civil rights, any more than it's their job to regulate RF bandwidth or handle trade policy. Have you ever sat in on a city council meeting? You're going to have a car salesman, a beautician, a retired school teacher and junior high basketball coach, a retired electronics tech, a Baptist preacher, and a sales manager. Their meetings are filled with questions like whether the sidewalk behind the school should be widened and whether a downtown intersection needs another lane.

 

Because big government is the way to go.

 

One could have said the same thing about blacks having to use separate drinking faucets sixty years ago.

 

You can refuse to hire someone because they're black. You can refuse to sell a house or rent an apartment to someone because they're black. You can refuse service to a black person in your store. Oh...and black people can't use a white drinking faucet.

What?!? A black person can't use a white drinking faucet?!?!!! OUTRAGIOUS!!!!

 

No, we have state governments for such matters. That way your rights and privileges don't end at the city limits, nor do you have city people who have all sorts of special legal protections that county people don't enjoy, creating a two-tiered society between you and people you often share a sidewalk with.

 

Yes. Seattle was able to raise their minimum wage. Because of this law, Charlotte cannot....apparently because bathrooms.

You like big government. That's a fact.

 

My point being that these things add up. The long history of slights against minority groups is why the Christian baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple became the huge deal that it was, to pick a recent example.

Just because there are far worse problems doesn't mean we shouldn't nip the stupid ones like these in the bud early. The fact is, despite idiots like gtardo insisting otherwise, there aren't very obvious, butch men passing themselves off as women to be creeps. This is just another sideways discrimination tactic, and a BS one at that.

 

for the record, the same law which permits trans women, with or without the penis they were born with, to toilet in women's public restrooms likewise permit trans men, with or without the vagina they were born with, to toilet in men's public restrooms.

And the same law which bars the former also bars the latter.

 

FTFY

The moralists are on your side, hero. And the NC law is NOT the same as KY law because several KY cities have Charlotte type NDOs

Kentucky
Covington, City of
Danville, City of
Frankfort, City of
Jefferson County
Lexington, City of
Lexington-Fayette County
Louisville, City of
Morehead, City of
Vicco, City of

http://www.hrc.org/resources/cities...discrimination-ordinances-that-include-gender