That is exactly the question at hand. How do you define them? Maybe we should just have one bathroom, and whoever wants to can use it. Or we have a 3rd bathroom for anyone that does not fit into a category.
I cannot do so in a way that does not discriminate against some portion of the group. Why jump to make the change to one or three bathrooms? The prior situation was that transgenders generally used the bathrooms appropriate to the gender they identified. The only issue was people discovering they were different and assaulting them for that difference. There is little chance of a transgender person being able to educate someone, including the authorities if they were called so they were left to be abused. The clear allowance for them to follow that course gave more probability that there would be a chance to educate some of the people. Then the legislature decided to confuse transgender with rapists and pedophiles and we have the mess now. In the cities where transgender access is clearly legal there are no issues with associated assaults on non-transgender people. As was noted on Fox of all places this is a solution looking for a problem.
Then why the need to pass a specific law to prevent the use in order to "protect" anyone else? Of course you are not considering that a transgender person being assaulted in a restroom will be unlikely to notify the authorities since there is a grey area in the choice of restrooms and without a clear approval the authorities may not take it seriously or deem it justified in some manner. Institutional discrimination is illegal and NC is guilty of violation of Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
http://www.politifact.com/north-car...ty-nc-director-no-public-safety-risks-cities/ No public safety risks in cities with transgender anti-discrimination rules In the fight to defend Charlotte’s anti-discrimination ordinance, supporters questioned claims that it would have been a threat to public safety. Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality NC, said many large cities have rules similar to what Charlotte proposed, before the legislature nullified it. Equality NC has since sued North Carolina to try to overturn the law. "There have not been any public safety issues in those other communities," Sgro said at a rally outside the legislature just days before Charlotte’s bill was overturned. Conservatives weren’t swayed, though. Before Charlotte’s bill was passed, and then after when it was being debated by the General Assembly and even now that is has been overturned, concerns about safety have been frequently mentioned. Mostly, opponents said opening up women’s restrooms to transgender women – people who are biologically male but identify as female – will make it easier for male sexual predators to commit crimes in bathrooms and locker rooms. Online, supporters galvanized around the motto #KeepNCSafe and sent out ads that included the phrase "don’t let our girls become victims" and "keep children safe." N.C. GOP Executive Director Dallas Woodhouse cited "privacy and safety concerns" in attacking Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is running for governor as a Democrat, for not stepping in to stop Charlotte’s bill on his own. A popular Christian author from Charlotte, Frank Turek, wrote an article about the backlash to the law that included the line, "The danger is real from sexual predators in women’s restrooms." On Thursday, the N.C. GOP distributed his column via email and bolded that sentence about sexual predators. So who is right? The evidence is overwhelmingly on Sgro’s side. That’s not to say that people don’t have honest concerns over privacy or mental anguish. Indeed, several opponents of Charlotte’s ordinance have spoken of their own experiences with sexual assault, and their fears that seeing someone with male genitalia in a women’s room might trigger painful memories. But still, Sgro said, Charlotte’s bill would not have legalized sexual assault, harassment or voyeurism – it just would’ve let transgender men and women use the bathrooms they’re more comfortable in. "Transgender people are not predators," he said. Examples to prove Sgro wrong? The entire state of Maryland and some of the largest cities in the country, including New York City, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Seattle and Austin, Texas, have rules banning discrimination against transgender people in public accommodation, including bathrooms. More than 200 cities and counties also ban workplace discrimination against transgender people. A dozen state public school systems and dozens of college campuses also have ordinances banning discrimination against transgender people, including in bathrooms. We asked the N.C. GOP if they could point to anything that backs up the safety fears. They provided a link to a news story in Seattle from earlier this year, about a man who had twice gone into a women’s locker room and began undressing. Seattle does allow transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. The man didn’t identify as transgender and didn’t appear to present as a woman, the story said. No one called the police, and the man wasn’t charged with any crime. Follow-up stories described the incident as a stunt, perhaps politically motivated. The liberal group Media Matters For America has studied the bathroom issue for several years, largely under the guidance of Carlos Maza. Maza, a Wake Forest University graduate, tweeted after North Carolina’s new law passed that "A man has never used an LGBT non-discrimination law to sneak into a bathroom." Maza has also polled public school systems that allow transgender students to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. In a June 2015 article, he wrote that in 17 districts with a total of 600,00 students, officials hadn’t reported a single incident of "harassment or inappropriate behavior" related to transgender students and bathrooms. But we still weren’t satisfied, so we kept digging, looking for examples of proven criminal behavior. We were likewise unable to find any examples in the United States, though we did find a case in Canada. In that case, Christopher Hambrook posed as a woman to gain entry to women’s shelters, where he attacked several people before being caught. Hambrook was sentenced to an "indefinite" jail term in 2014 that could lead to him spending the rest of his life in prison. Hambrook committed the crimes in Toronto, which has an ordinance protecting transgender people. That appears to be the first, and so far only, incident of its kind in North America. After spending hours combing through conservative blogs and family values websites dedicated to news about transgender bathroom ordinances, we were able to confirm three cases in the United States in the last 17 years in which a biological male was convicted of a crime that involved him in a women’s bathroom or locker room and dressed as a woman. It’s unclear if any of the three identified as transgender women, but none of those cases happened in cities where it would’ve been legal for a transgender woman to use the women’s room anyway. And none involved sexual assault or rape. In 1999, Patrick Hagan was convicted in Tampa, Fla., for punching a woman in a bar bathroom during an argument. In 2010, Norwood Burns was convicted in Gordon County, Georgia, for exposing himself in a Walmart bathroom. In 2011, Thomas Lee Benson was convicted of trespassing in a Clackamas, Oregon, women’s locker room and trying to talk to children. Again, though, none of those crimes occurred in places where biological men would’ve had any legal claim to being in a women’s room by virtue of being a transgender woman. The blogs did identify a few examples of alleged criminal activity having taken place under the guise of transgender-friendly bathrooms laws, but we couldn’t find proof of any convictions in those cases. Our ruling Chris Sgro, the executive director of Equality NC, said that "There have not been any public safety issues in those other communities" with ordinances allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice. We haven’t found any instances of criminals convicted of using transgender protections as cover in the United States. Neither have any left-wing groups or right-wing groups. There was one incident in Canada, involving a rapist. In the U.S., there have been a few yet-unproven allegations. We rate this claim Mostly True.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964: (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or HB2 note the non-inclusive qualifier which was added: It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees. http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf
We already have laws against discrimination and you are in violation of them. Move along Governor and legislature.
I do not have to the DOJ will do it nicely, but the court rulings are clear. Title XI was just ruled upon by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a transgender in Virginia. NC is in the 4th Circuit so it directly applies to the violation of Title IX, which was completely ignored in the states press releases, but which will have a huge impact if the funds are withheld.
Title VII litigation in other districts, but since the Title IX ruling in the 4th Circuit does cover NC and the base for discrimination under each Title is the same ..... NC has no chance to win. On September 19, 2008, a federal district judge ruled that the Library of Congress illegally discriminated against Schroer, in a groundbreaking decision that found that discriminating against someone for changing genders is sex discrimination under federal law. On April 28, 2009, the judge ordered the government to pay nearly $500,000 in compensation for the discrimination, which was the maximum he could award in the case. Federal cases which have upheld transgender rights under Title VII include Smith v. City of Salem in the Sixth Circuit (2004), Schroer v. Billington in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2008), and Glenn v. Brumby in the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta (2011). All of these victories set the table for the landmark EEOC decision, issued on April 20, 2012, in a case brought by Transgender Law Center: Macy v. Holder. In that case, the bipartisan EEOC—the federal agency in charge of enforcing employment discrimination laws—declared unanimously that anti-trans bias was sex discrimination under Title VII.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article72637592.html The 4th Circuit court is an appellate court that hears cases from five states, including North Carolina. Last year, a panel of the court that included two of the three judges in the Grimm case struck down a Virginia ban on marriage between same-sex couples, and that decision quickly nullified North Carolina’s constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Tobias said he would expect challengers of HB2 to take the Grimm ruling to a North Carolina federal judge and argue that it answers the core legal question. By overturning a lower court decision in the Virginia case, the appellate panel found that Title IX, the federal law that prohibits gender discrimination and harassment in schools, protects the rights of students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. Critics say North Carolina’s law could place in jeopardy about $4 billion in federal funds for education, housing and transportation if the state is found in violation of Title IX. Judge Henry Floyd, writing for the majority, highlighted a federal Department of Education Office of Civil Rights opinion letter dated Jan. 7, 2015. In it, federal officials said it was OK for schools to have “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex” as long as the facilities provided for one gender were comparable to what was provided to the other. “When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex … a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/po...e-politics/article72637592.html#storylink=cpy
Actually the mayor did not support any discriminatory legislation, but did support what the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as being the intent of the Civil Rights Act anti-sexual discrimination aspect.
Not that I support HB2, but, I don't see why Charlotte needed to pass the ordinance they did. Of other note, this is just a drop in the bucket as far as the wasteful spending is concerned. You are correct when you say we all pay for it, as long as the we you are referring to is the citizens who actually pay taxes.
