7 Questions for Governor McCrory over his anti-LGBT law
Published March 30, 2016
by Chris Fitzsimon, NC Policy Watch and NC SPIN panelist, March 29, 2016.
Governor Pat McCrory this week defended the sweeping anti-LBGT law he signed last week by blaming the media for biased reporting and calling the growing opposition to the discriminatory legislation “political theater.”
McCrory spoke briefly with reporters after a groundbreaking ceremony for a Novo Nordisk facility in Clayton Wednesday, first claiming that misreporting by media outlets was fueling the national and international outrage over the law and then saying that reporters were “blindsiding” him with questions about it.
Here are seven questions that McCrory should answer to clear things up for people who are concerned. There are many more, but answering these would clear up a lot of the lingering confusion about where McCrory stands.
1) Should it be legal for businesses in Charlotte and across North Carolina to fire people who are gay or transgender simply because of their sexual orientation?
The Charlotte ordinance that McCrory’s law overturned prohibited companies from firing LGBT workers because of their sexual orientation just like they are banned from firing employees because of their race, religion, gender, country of origin, etc.
The statewide nondiscrimination standard established in McCrory’s law does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. Lawmakers defeated attempts in the House and Senate to include those categories, leaving LGBT people in Charlotte and the rest of North Carolina without protections from employment discrimination. Where does McCrory stand?
2) Should it be legal for hotels, restaurants, taxi companies, and other businesses in Charlotte and across the state to refuse to serve people because of their sexual orientation? McCrory apparently thinks so.
The Charlotte ordinance that McCrory’s law overturned also protected LGBT people from discrimination in such public accommodations, and it prohibits any other local government from passing such protections. LGBT people are also not protected in the statewide public accommodations protections in the law.
McCrory’s law simply does not protect LGBT people from discrimination and does not let cities or counties protect them either.
3) What evidence do you have that allowing transgender people to use the public bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity will endanger women and children?
Are there reports from the 200+ cities with similar ordinances that show dramatic increases in sexual assaults? Did you or your staff call law enforcement authorities or other local officials in cities like Columbia, S.C. that have had a similar ordinance in place for years?
4) Why does a bill that Lt. Gov. Dan Forest says deals only with bathrooms take away the right of workers in North Carolina illegally fired for being Christian–or African-American-or female–from suing in state court?
What does that have to do with the Charlotte ordinance? And do you realize that Mississippi is the only other state that bans workers from suing under state law if they are fired based on sex, race, religion, etc.?
5) Should transgender people like Caitlyn Jenner who identify as female be forced to use the men’s restroom? What about transgender people in North Carolina who are unable to get their birth certificate changed? Which bathroom should they use?
6) Why did you sign the bill in the dark of night the same day the bill passed instead of meeting with people on both sides of the issue first, as other governors have done? Why did you not respond to an invitation from the ACLU of North Carolina to meet with transgender youth like the governor of South Dakota did before he vetoed a similar discrimination bill?
7) Why did you describe questions reporters asked about the law as blindsiding you when you signed the bill five days earlier? Isn’t it fair for the media and the public to expect you to fully understand the content and consequences of the legislation you sign?
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2016/03/29/seven-questions-for-gov-mccrory-about-his-anti-lgbt-law/
March 30, 2016 at 10:58 am
Norm Kelly says:
Liberalism is a disease of the mind. Liberals prove this to us every time they spew forth their confusion, trying to drag us down the same rabbit hole they choose to go down. Except some of us can still think, avoiding the disaster that libs are trying to foist upon us.
First, there is NO doubt where Pat stands. Only a lib could look at what McCrory has done, has said, and still wonder where he stands.
To prove my point, let me quote directly from Chris, a confused die-hard lib if ever there was one: 'answering these would clear up a lot of the lingering confusion about where McCrory stands'. Pat warned Charlotte not to pass sweeping discrimination ordinances prior to Charlotte doing it. After Charlotte overstepped their authority, Pat came out to denounce it, and suggest he might want to have a special session to void their over-reach. Then, the legislature came back to Raleigh to put things right, Pat singed it immediately, and it became law that Charlotte was out of line. So, who is left wondering where Pat stands? Only libs who can't see beyond their own bias!
'blaming the media for biased reporting'. So, were the stories from the media biased? First, they were not reporting, they were editorializing and being major proponents for this outrageous attack on normal people. Go back and read some of what media allies of the left were saying/printing, and you too will find that they were totally biased in favor of a small minority of liberals.
Will I bother reading the rest of what spews forth from Chris's post? No. Start out with an invalid, close-minded, liberal rant, and the remainder of what is printed is pointless. Like I started out, Pat's position is at least as clear as Chris's but Chris doesn't like Pat's position, so he questions it. Thinkers don't accept Chris's premise, first because it is flawed, and second because some of us retain the ability to think.
Let's say I'm in an elevator with a particularly attractive woman. I notice her hair is quite extraordinary, unusual, and comment on how nice it looks. I can be taken to court for sexual intimidation. If we work for the same company, she can force management to send me to 'sensitivity training' so I know not to speak with women in the future. But the non-thinking libs out there want to claim that it is perfectly acceptable for this same woman and I to use the same bathroom or shower room AT THE SAME TIME. And for some confused, illogical, indefinable reason, this would NOT constitute sexual harassment, would not create a hostile environment, and MUST be allowed. I can hear all the libs out there going nuts, Chris's head just exploded, because they don't believe this is what the Charlotte ordinance would allow. Yet the purposely vague wording of the over-reach ordinance passed by the gay community in Charlotte allows exactly this situation to occur. And the leader of the proponents, a registered sex offender, knew this going into the project.
If I make an 'off color' joke in the work place, any woman present can either sue me for a hostile work environment, sue the company for allowing a hostile work environment, sue all of us for sexual harassment, force the company to send every male employee to 'sensitivity training' so we learn that we are not allowed to speak to any woman without prior written permission, full agenda included. But then I can walk into the ladies room along with same woman and non-thinkers who wish to destroy our free nation believe it should be acceptable. This same woman and I can share the same public shower and she can do nothing about it. Because I identify as a black female, I can use whichever room I CHOOSE and she can do nothing about it. How can she prove I am not a black female, based on the history of liberalism and the Charlotte ordinance? If I self-identify as a gay male, everyone is forced to accept it. But if I identify as a black female, same group of non-thinking libs is going to object? On what grounds?
The most freeing thing I've done in recent history is self-identify as a black female. Not only do I get all kinds of government benefits, but I get to choose the facility I use. No one can disagree with me because they would be considered racists. And as a female, they are also considered sexists. Remember, it was one of those non-thinking libs that said there's a special place in hell for anyone with a vagina who chooses not to support the presidential candidate who also has a vagina! (does she?) So, since I am a black female, every female out there is forced to agree with me or be proven a hypocrite. And libs can't disagree with me cuz then they will prove how illogical and demeaning they are to actual black females. Win-win for me! See, I remember when I didn't identify as a black female and disagreed with the current occupier for his socialist policies. I was referred to as a racist. Not because I objected to expanding socialism, but because the implementer happened to be a (mostly) black man. I was not allowed to disagree with him because AND ONLY because he was (somewhat) more black than me. So, if libs are honest and consistent, they must accept my opinion of people like Chris because as a black female I get the same benefit of the doubt that all libs provide to all people of color and all females. But, we all know that libs are neither honest nor consistent. Libs are very situational. Libs never accept dissenting opinions. Libs always find it necessary to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. Even if they have to provide 'misinformation' or resort to personal attacks. Think Billary and crazy Harry if you need examples. Then go back to the beginning of Chris's post where he wonders about Pat's position; a position that is obvious to everyone else! You too will realize that finishing his post is a waste of time and his effort. No thought required, just feelings!
