5 ms·

The law also bars cities from protecting LGBT rights, and bars individuals of any of the remaining protected classes for suing if they're discriminated against

by gecko 11y ago

The law also bars cities from protecting LGBT rights, and bars individuals of any of the remaining protected classes for suing if they're discriminated against in the first place--effectively gutting the entire antidiscrimination law. Calling this "the bathroom bill" was a shrewd marketing move on the legislature's side, but there are some really strong reasons to condemn this bill even if you do agree with the bathroom part.

joshuaheard 11y ago
I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not, or thinks he is a woman. The law provides an accommodation for single stall bathrooms for any gender. I think Paypal is being the troll here.
- EdwardMSmith 11y ago
  > I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not. Why? What is the underlying reason for that? Is it different if your (hypothetical?) son of the same age might have a woman (regardless of dress) in with him? I'm genuinely curious.
  - joshuaheard 11y ago
    No, I don't want my 10 year old daughter seeing strange men urinating and defecating, or in various stages of undress in a public restroom. But, if the issue is whether we should have separate bathrooms for the genders, let's have that conversation instead of forcing it on society in the guise of discrimination.
    - kstrauser 11y ago
      Consider this law means your daughter has to share the bathroom with female-to-male people, including those who look like lumberjacks. Would she be more shocked by seeing a woman-appearing person in the bathroom (assuming they're not showing each other their private bits) than a man-appearing person?
    - vertex-four 11y ago
      > No, I don't want my 10 year old daughter seeing strange men urinating and defecating, or in various stages of undress in a public restroom. I'm confused... in bathrooms in the US, you don't have cubicles that shut+lock? You strip naked in public areas? In my country, we have cubicles that lock and people pull their clothes back on before unlocking them. Also, like... why's it ok for her to see strange cis women taking a shit, in case you actually do all shit in the open?
- gecko 11y ago
  > I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. That's okay; a lot of people have reading deficits, and in fact my company works a lot to help people with them. One thing we've found helps with reading deficits is breaking things down, so let's do that. First, load up http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pd... in another browser window. That's the actual bill text, presented as a diff. HB2 has three parts. The first part is about bathrooms, and the second part prohibits cities have a minimum wage other than the state's, so I'm going to completely ignore those two bits. That leaves part III. Part III has three main parts. Here's what they do: Part III, Section 3.1(c), says that only the state definitions of protected classes matter, and that local municipalities cannot define their own: "this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State". So the only protected classes are those defined by the state. Part III, Section 3.2, adds the line, "This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein." This is technical language, but "private right of action", in this context, means "bring a suit." Thus, only the state can bring action; you can't. And due to Part III, Section 3.1(c), local cities cannot create their own laws that do permit this. Thus, the first part of my statement: you are now barred from suing for discrimination, and must rely on the state. Finally, Part III, Section 3.3(a), redefines the state's protected classes to include "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex". Since sexual orientation and gender identity are not included here, and Part III Section 3.1 forbade cities from having their own protected classes, we have now prohibited the entire LGBT community from being declared a protected class, and therefore the state is under no obligation (and, in fact, has no legal basis) to bring discrimination complaints about sexual orientation.
  - joshuaheard 11y ago
    All they changed was to add the word "biological" to "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex". Sexual orientation and gender identity were never in the state law. This is not the gutting of discrimination laws you describe.

by gecko 11y ago

joshuaheard 11y ago

I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not, or thinks he is a woman. The law provides an accommodation for single stall bathrooms for any gender. I think Paypal is being the troll here.

EdwardMSmith 11y ago
> I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not. Why? What is the underlying reason for that? Is it different if your (hypothetical?) son of the same age might have a woman (regardless of dress) in with him? I'm genuinely curious.
- joshuaheard 11y ago
  No, I don't want my 10 year old daughter seeing strange men urinating and defecating, or in various stages of undress in a public restroom. But, if the issue is whether we should have separate bathrooms for the genders, let's have that conversation instead of forcing it on society in the guise of discrimination.
  - kstrauser 11y ago
    Consider this law means your daughter has to share the bathroom with female-to-male people, including those who look like lumberjacks. Would she be more shocked by seeing a woman-appearing person in the bathroom (assuming they're not showing each other their private bits) than a man-appearing person?
  - vertex-four 11y ago
    > No, I don't want my 10 year old daughter seeing strange men urinating and defecating, or in various stages of undress in a public restroom. I'm confused... in bathrooms in the US, you don't have cubicles that shut+lock? You strip naked in public areas? In my country, we have cubicles that lock and people pull their clothes back on before unlocking them. Also, like... why's it ok for her to see strange cis women taking a shit, in case you actually do all shit in the open?
gecko 11y ago
> I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. That's okay; a lot of people have reading deficits, and in fact my company works a lot to help people with them. One thing we've found helps with reading deficits is breaking things down, so let's do that. First, load up http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pd... in another browser window. That's the actual bill text, presented as a diff. HB2 has three parts. The first part is about bathrooms, and the second part prohibits cities have a minimum wage other than the state's, so I'm going to completely ignore those two bits. That leaves part III. Part III has three main parts. Here's what they do: Part III, Section 3.1(c), says that only the state definitions of protected classes matter, and that local municipalities cannot define their own: "this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State". So the only protected classes are those defined by the state. Part III, Section 3.2, adds the line, "This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein." This is technical language, but "private right of action", in this context, means "bring a suit." Thus, only the state can bring action; you can't. And due to Part III, Section 3.1(c), local cities cannot create their own laws that do permit this. Thus, the first part of my statement: you are now barred from suing for discrimination, and must rely on the state. Finally, Part III, Section 3.3(a), redefines the state's protected classes to include "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex". Since sexual orientation and gender identity are not included here, and Part III Section 3.1 forbade cities from having their own protected classes, we have now prohibited the entire LGBT community from being declared a protected class, and therefore the state is under no obligation (and, in fact, has no legal basis) to bring discrimination complaints about sexual orientation.
- joshuaheard 11y ago
  All they changed was to add the word "biological" to "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex". Sexual orientation and gender identity were never in the state law. This is not the gutting of discrimination laws you describe.