HB2 Strikes Again

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

From the CLT website describing their ordinance:

Quote:
----------
The ordinance does not permit or excuse inappropriate or unlawful activity. The ordinance protects the legitimate use of facilities for transgender persons; it is not an excuse to misuse the law for criminal purposes or even for reasons of convenience.

A business may object to a non-transgender person seeking to use a restroom or changing facility for a false reason. A business may require persons who do not have the protected characteristics of gender identity or gender expression to use the appropriate restroom. A business may also report or remove persons who are engaging in criminal activity.

A business concerned that a non-transgender person is using an inappropriate restroom or changing facility may ask that person to use the appropriate facility. If the person does not comply, the business may contact CMPD to file a trespassing complaint. Such enforcement is not deemed to be discrimination under the ordinance.

Additionally, the North Carolina indecent exposure laws remain valid in restrooms and locker rooms within the City of Charlotte. If a violation of the indecent exposure laws occurs, please contact CMPD.
----------

That is some horseshit, how does a business evaluate a person's gender identity? If a dude dresses as a woman but does a shitty job and clearly still looks like a dude, does that mean he does not have the protected characteristic of gender identity? Or does it mean he is just a bad dresser? The dong-inspector argument of the anti-HB2 crowd is just as easily spun into a make-up-inspector argument of the ant-CLT-ordinance crowd. Both laws are equally stupid. Does this poor bastard have a protected characteristic of gender identity?

As to the last point, NC assault laws remain valid in all restrooms and locker rooms, so if a violation occurs please call CMPD. So, combined with the lack of any actual evidence of bathroom violence, why the need for the CLT ordinance in the first place?

 

[SpringChicken]

As to the last point, NC assault laws remain valid in all restrooms and locker rooms, so if a violation occurs please call CMPD. So, combined with the lack of any actual evidence of bathroom violence, why the need for the CLT ordinance in the first place?

Under HB2, a person who was born with male genitals but identifies as female and now presents as female (and maybe has even undergone hormone therapy to present as female) is legally required to walk into the men's room to use the bathroom.

Under HB2, a person who was born with female genitals but identifies as a male and presents themselves as a male (and maybe has even undergone hormone therapy to present as male) is legally required to walk into the women's room to use the bathroom.

So, if you want to go out on a limb and assume that transgender people typically do a pretty good job of presenting as their chosen gender (and don't just look like Max Klinger from M*A*S*H), what you're requiring is for apparent women to walk into the men's room and apparent men to walk into the women's room. Yes, assault is still illegal, but that's not the basic problem. You're making them use the "wrong" restroom in both their eyes and in the eyes of the other people using the restrooms.

If you don't see the difference between that and someone walking in to try and stare into stalls or over urinals, or just expose themselves out in the open, then your mind don't work too good.

 

[scooter84]

Under HB2, a person who was born with male genitals but identifies as female and now presents as female (and maybe has even undergone hormone therapy to present as female) is legally required to walk into the men's room to use the bathroom.

Under HB2, a person who was born with female genitals but identifies as a male and presents themselves as a male (and maybe has even undergone hormone therapy to present as male) is legally required to walk into the women's room to use the bathroom.

So, if you want to go out on a limb and assume that transgender people typically do a pretty good job of presenting as their chosen gender (and don't just look like Max Klinger from M*A*S*H), what you're requiring is for apparent women to walk into the men's room and apparent men to walk into the women's room. Yes, assault is still illegal, but that's not the basic problem. You're making them use the "wrong" restroom in both their eyes and in the eyes of the other people using the restrooms.

If you don't see the difference between that and someone walking in to try and stare into stalls or over urinals, or just expose themselves out in the open, then your mind don't work too good.

I don't see anyone arguing for this - unless I missed it. Most people argue against both of the bathroom laws - the CLT ordinance and HB2.

 

[PhDeac]

I don't see anyone arguing for this - unless I missed it. Most people argue against both of the bathroom laws - the CLT ordinance and HB2.

That was the whole purpose of HB2 which had broad support from NC Republicans.

 

[scooter84]

That was the whole purpose of HB2 which had broad support from NC Republicans.

Only in response to the CLT ordinance for the reasons I pointed out before.

 

[PhDeac]

But why was there a need to respond unless the NC GOP wanted people who look like men to go to women's bathrooms?

 

[RJKarl]

Only in response to the CLT ordinance for the reasons I pointed out before.

Using this logic, if a city passed a law stating that it was illegal in their jurisdiction to discriminate in any way against anyone in the LGBTQ community. Then it would be a logical response for the state to have a "religious freedom act" that allows employers, businesses, landlords and everyone to deny jobs, services, places to live, etc. to all LGBTQ people because of a boss/owner's "religious beliefs".

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

But why was there a need to respond unless the NC GOP wanted people who look like men to go to women's bathrooms?

Because, regardless of the outcome, the CLT Ordinance was discriminatory, stupid, and an overreach of a city council's power. I don't think HB2 itself was the correct response, but the state was proper in responding.

 

[MysteryMen]

Only in response to the CLT ordinance for the reasons I pointed out before.

This doesn't add up. If the only problem was the Charlotte ordinance, the state could have just overrode the Charlotte ordinance and returned things to where they were before. But they enacted positive requirements on which bathrooms people could use. You can't blame the Charlotte ordinance for that.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

This doesn't add up. If the only problem was the Charlotte ordinance, the state could have just overrode the Charlotte ordinance and returned things to where they were before. But they enacted positive requirements on which bathrooms people could use. You can't blame the Charlotte ordinance for that.

You can damn sure blame the morons on the CLT City Council for enacting a discriminatory ordinance that was merely a "look at me" law addressing no actual problem, which was bound from the jump to get cuntpunted by their equally moronic counterparts in the legislature. It was a publicity cockfight waiting to happen from the start.

 

[scooter84]

But why was there a need to respond unless the NC GOP wanted people who look like men to go to women's bathrooms?

As I said before - there was a need to respond because "Without any codification of any new laws at all, such people have been going to the bathroom of their choice for years - even decades - with no problem. The problem arises when you try to codify that right. How do you do so without making it legal for ANY man to go into the women's restroom or changing room? I know people pooh-pooh such concerns and I am sure issues would be rare, but that is what freaks people out. If it is legal for a man to be in the women's locker room, what right do you have to kick them out if you suspect they are simply loitering to ogle women?"

Again, I am not saying HB2 was the correct response - so stop trying to make me defend that law. I am only trying to discuss the reasons that many people were uncomfortable with the CLT ordinance.

 

[RJKarl]

As I said before - there was a need to respond because "Without any codification of any new laws at all, such people have been going to the bathroom of their choice for years - even decades - with no problem. The problem arises when you try to codify that right. How do you do so without making it legal for ANY man to go into the women's restroom or changing room? I know people pooh-pooh such concerns and I am sure issues would be rare, but that is what freaks people out. If it is legal for a man to be in the women's locker room, what right do you have to kick them out if you suspect they are simply loitering to ogle women?"

Again, I am not saying HB2 was the correct response - so stop trying to make me defend that law. I am only trying to discuss the reasons that many people were uncomfortable with the CLT ordinance.

The Charlotte law did not erase laws for exposing yourself or being a peeping Tom which is what you are worrying about.

 

[MysteryMen]

You can damn sure blame the morons on the CLT City Council for enacting a discriminatory ordinance that was merely a "look at me" law addressing no actual problem, which was bound from the jump to get cuntpunted by their equally moronic counterparts in the legislature. It was a publicity cockfight waiting to happen from the start.

You don't bear responsibility for somebody overreacting.

 

[Tobacco Road]

As I said before - there was a need to respond because "Without any codification of any new laws at all, such people have been going to the bathroom of their choice for years - even decades - with no problem. The problem arises when you try to codify that right. How do you do so without making it legal for ANY man to go into the women's restroom or changing room? I know people pooh-pooh such concerns and I am sure issues would be rare, but that is what freaks people out. If it is legal for a man to be in the women's locker room, what right do you have to kick them out if you suspect they are simply loitering to ogle women?"

Again, I am not saying HB2 was the correct response - so stop trying to make me defend that law. I am only trying to discuss the reasons that many people were uncomfortable with the CLT ordinance.

Are they using the restroom for its intended purpose or are they loitering to ogle women? It seems it would be quite easy to tell the difference. I appreciate your measured and respectful responses, so not trying to be a smartass, but I think that is your answer.

 

[MysteryMen]

As I said before - there was a need to respond because "Without any codification of any new laws at all, such people have been going to the bathroom of their choice for years - even decades - with no problem. The problem arises when you try to codify that right. How do you do so without making it legal for ANY man to go into the women's restroom or changing room? I know people pooh-pooh such concerns and I am sure issues would be rare, but that is what freaks people out. If it is legal for a man to be in the women's locker room, what right do you have to kick them out if you suspect they are simply loitering to ogle women?"

Again, I am not saying HB2 was the correct response - so stop trying to make me defend that law. I am only trying to discuss the reasons that many people were uncomfortable with the CLT ordinance.

People used to be uncomfortable with white people marrying black people too (some probably still are). Discomfort alone is not enough to justify discrimination.

 

[scooter84]

Are they using the restroom for its intended purpose or are they loitering to ogle women? It seems it would be quite easy to tell the difference. I appreciate your measured and respectful responses, so not trying to be a smartass, but I think that is your answer.

Easy in theory, possibly not so easy in practice. And, with respect to loitering and ogling, I think locker rooms and changing rooms are more of a concern than simple bathrooms.

 

[TheReff]

You can damn sure blame the morons on the CLT City Council for enacting a discriminatory ordinance that was merely a "look at me" law addressing no actual problem, which was bound from the jump to get cuntpunted by their equally moronic counterparts in the legislature. It was a publicity cockfight waiting to happen from the start.

Amen Slider, sing it to the mountaintops!! Best part was it bit them in the butt first because they lost the NBA All-Star game last year. hahahahahaha Then they caused us to lose all these NCAA & ACC events, turning sports into something political, which it shouldn't be. All for something that was never a problem in the first place in Charlotte. Plus--go to the damn bathroom where you are supposed to--with the original tools God gave you and what is on your birth certificate. It reads M or F. There are no other categories when you come out of the chute.

 

[RJKarl]

Easy in theory, possibly not so easy in practice. And, with respect to loitering and ogling, I think locker rooms and changing rooms are more of a concern than simple bathrooms.

But there are still laws about voyeurism and public exposure. Your red herring is just that.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

You don't bear responsibility for somebody overreacting.

Of course not, but this is perfectly consistent with his "Obama is to blame for Donald" nonsense as well.

 

[scooter84]

The Charlotte law did not erase laws for exposing yourself or being a peeping Tom which is what you are worrying about.

Serious question - under your theory where trans people go the bathroom and locker room of their gender identity, if a man who identifies and presents as female but has not had the operation undresses in a female locker room, is that an illegal act "exposing yourself"? I don't know the answer in that world but I imagine it might be extremely uncomfortable and offensive to the other women changing there.

As for "peeping toms" - how do you call it "peeping" if the person is in there legally?

All of these issues are complicated and society is fairly new at dealing with them. I don't have the answers and don't believe that either the CLT ordinance nor HB2 were the right approach. But I do see both sides of the issue clearly. I believe that society would adjust naturally to dealing with this stuff, without codification of new laws - if people (i.e. politicians trying to push an agenda either way) would just let it happen. I believe society has been (to a large extent) dealing with the bathroom issue fine for a long time.

As I said before, I would be in favor of updating anti-discrimination laws to include gender identity and sexual preference and forgetting about the bathrooms.