Friday, April 8, 2016


Twist and turn
NC law misread


NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATORS recently passed a bill, Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act that opponents scream is "anti-LGBT" and maybe "Q," too.

Meanwhile, Fox News' Channel 8 out of High Point NC, is filling its news timeslots with stories about the bill.

A "must read" is Myths vs. Facts’ about House Bill 2 released by NC Gov. Pat McCrory’s office.

Of course if you prefer to disbelieve anything the Republican governor says, and it seems many - most - liberals, in North Carolina and outside of the state, have no faith in anything a Republican says, then the "Myths vs. Facts" article is a bunch of lies.

On the other hand, it makes good reading if you are for, or against (aghast), the measure.

FOR EXAMPLE, under the headline Businesses across North Carolina join map of ‘safe bathrooms’ in response to transgender law, there is letter from owner of Pure Pizza on the firm's Twitter page (@PurePizzaCLT) stating she has a UniSex bathroom to accommodate

  • Single Dads with daughters
  • Single Moms with sons
  • Parents with disabled children
  • Those in the LGBTQ community
  • Adults with aging parents who may be disabled

The state law would NOT prevent Pure Pizza from having a UniSex bathroom, but it would prevent a UniSex bathroom for use by more than one person at a time, or anyone on the Pure Pizza list. (The law specifically PERMITS parents and caregivers to accompany children and disabled persons into a bathroom.)

The same URL included a letter from Robt. DuBose, president of Montreat, a Presbyterian Church (USA) property that posted on its Twitter site that "Trent@Montreat is is perfect for all pastors" Mr. DuBose is both "dismayed" and "disappointed" by the law.

Under the heading PepsiCo CEO writes Gov. McCrory, wants repeal of NC’s LGBT law, PepsiCo head Indra Nooyi called the law inconsistent with how her company treats its employees. She added that The law is undermining efforts to advance North Carolina’s interests.

Allowing transgender people into biologically-specific restrooms, shower facilities, etc. is an awkward situation.

Assume a biological male who considers himself a female enters a bathroom or shower area for biological females. Could it be that the person is a voyeur or rapist? Can a transgender person be heterosexual or is the transgender person by definition homosexual?

I can see where allowing anyone claiming to be transgender into whatever shower room the person declared matched his/her current sexual inclination could prove more than a little problematic for ALL concerned.

I have to wonder where MY rights to privacy end. I don't think I want my grandchildren going into a bathroom where the person next to them is not the same sex as the child.

Obviously employers must now install His, Her, and LGBTQ facilities - except for private clubs which are exempt - if they want to keep employees and customers who are so "old fashioned" as to believe a biological "X" should be prohibited from a multiple occupancy bathroom assigned for biological "Y"s.

I have no particular problem with a business having undesignated single occupancy facilities - doctors offices, medical labs, etc. all have such facilities; the key words are SINGLE OCCUPANCY.


FOR THE RECORD, the full name of the bill, which may be read by following the link here, is "An act to provide for single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and 3 changing facilities in schools and public agencies and to create 4 statewide consistency in regulation of employment and public 5 accommodations" The "Myths vs. Facts’ about House Bill 2" cited at the beginning of this exercise can be considered a CliffNotesR version of the bill.

No comments: