Posted on 04/26/2016 5:33:33 AM PDT by Rusty0604
The saga of the so-called Charlotte bathroom ordinance — and the state of North Carolina’s response to it — has taken on a life of its own. At the national level leftists are accusing North Carolina of bigotry while, in the name of tolerance, a growing list of performers and businesses are boycotting the state. Unfortunately, what has gotten lost in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is the truth about both the original Charlotte law and the state’s response to it.
In late February the Charlotte, North Carolina, city council passed an “antidiscrimination” law, scheduled to go into effect on April 1. It was aimed at protecting what, in the view of the city council, are the rights of those in the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. The centerpiece of this law was a provision that prohibits businesses providing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers from segregating usage of those facilities by gender, biologically defined. Biological males or females must be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex if they claim that that is the sex they identify with psychologically. (Note, no proof was required.)
Much of the criticism of the Charlotte bill was centered around two issues: the religious freedom of business owners and the privacy rights of people, particularly women, using public bathroom and shower facilities. Most of the vocal opposition to the ordinance came from religious organizations and advocacy groups that focused on traditional values. As argued by John Rustin, President of the Family Policy Council:
Similar ordinances have been used to force small business owners like florists, bakers, photographers and bed-and-breakfast owners and others either to conform to a government-dictated viewpoint in violation of those sincerely held religious beliefs or to face legal charges, fines and other penalties that have ultimately caused some to go out of business.
Private Property, Not Religion, Is the Key
While religious liberty is an important concern, the issue is much broader. This ordinance was an assault on the rights of private property owners and economic freedom, regardless of one’s religious beliefs.
The primary targets of the Charlotte ordinance were privately owned businesses that offer bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, etc., for their customer’s convenience. The decision of how to structure access to these facilities may, for some, be based on their religious beliefs but for many others it is a secular business decision. Their goal is customer satisfaction driven by the desire to make a profit and earn a living. The property that they use is privately owned, the investments that they make come from private funds, and those who reap the rewards or suffer the losses are private entrepreneurs. The bathrooms in their establishments are part of the product that they provide.
In a free society based on property rights and free markets, as all free societies must be, a privately owned business would have the right to decide whether or not it wants separate bathrooms strictly for men and women biologically defined, bathrooms for men and women subjectively or psychologically defined, completely gender neutral bathrooms with no labels on the doors, or no bathrooms at all.
Businesses Seek to Please Their Customers
Their goal is to provide the products and services that most of their customers want in an environment that those customers feel comfortable in. This environment may indeed be different for different establishments depending on the desires and cultural makeup of their clients. This Charlotte ordinance told businesses that they are not allowed to adjust their decisions regarding their bathroom, locker room, or shower facilities in order to accommodate customer preferences. In this sense the now overturned Charlotte ordinance was a gross violation of property rights and economic freedom and on libertarian grounds needed to be overturned.
So what was the state of North Carolina’s response to all this? In fact, it was to restore freedom and property rights and to guarantee those rights across the state. The law in North Carolina that so many progressives are up in arms about does not prohibit businesses from having bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc., that allow use by people of all genders defined biologically, psychologically, or whatever. In a “myths vs facts” explanatory statement put out by the governor of North Carolina this was made quite clear:
Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with ...?
Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. …The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.
In other words, the state of North Carolina codified a basic libertarian principle: the separation of bathroom and state.
The only place where bathrooms, showers, etc., must conform with biological sex is in government owned facilities — courtrooms, city halls, schools, etc., where this separation is not possible. So yes, in North Carolina 12-year old boys, defined by what body parts they are sporting, may not use the girls’ locker room and showers after gym class at the local public middle school. Of course private middle schools are free to do what they want. If not believing that this is unjust discrimination makes me a bigot, then so be it.
So where does this approach leave the issue of religious freedom? For the most part, and particularly in cases like this, religious freedom is nothing more than the right to use your own property in a way that comports with your religious beliefs. This applies not only to the issue of who gets to use what bathrooms but also to the Little Sister’s of the Poor and Obama’s contraceptive mandate, and most of the other religious freedom cases that are of concern to traditional values advocates. If property rights and economic freedom are the values that are upheld, then religious freedom will take care of itself.
In keeping with contemporary sexual orthodoxy, there seems to be a large, and increasing, number of men who want to go into the ladies’ room to shake their wicks at Little Susie.
Right or wrong, it's a great way of distinguishing between the decent people (and businesses) and the perv-lovers.
Which in turn flies in the face of the “new evangelism” that insists on taking over as much publicly visible manifestations of people’s private preferences as possible — and make them over into a new mold that is a bridge too far even for the general public.
The irony is golden rich, to use an ironic term. Pity the poor fool, like Donald Trump, who stumbles in this labyrinth.
Much like American’s own recent military history, this is a war by proxies. What’s going on behind the scenes is the devil snickering at God’s good creation and trying to trip it up.
Churches are the only agencies that can really furnish the needed answer of the grace of God. It’s so easy to imagine an answer of infinite berating and judgment, but this ends up in the fate of “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” In fact, nobody can possibly live up to the necessary level without first being carried along in the wise, pardoning grace of God.
WILL they furnish it, however. “It is time for judgment to begin, and it will begin with the household of God” — not even with the temples of Baal.
Or, what different groups deem decent, so that there will be a war of the purported decencies.
We have several women friends, of all political sides of the field. My wife has not found a single one that wants to allow men in dresses in their bathrooms. And she has friends from early 20’s to late 60’s, liberal, moderates and conservatives. And we live in a Blue county in California. Now on the male side of this, men don’t want them in their bathrooms and suggest they go to the ladies room. The solution? Put a lock on the door and either allow one person in at a time, or deny restrooms to customers. I cannot believe in 2016 that we cannot figure what gender we were born with and what to do with that gender. This is basic biology and science! Di .004% of the public fail this? Are they being misled for monetary gain by doctors and big Pharma that wants to pump them full of drugs and see what they do? Is this marketing or just propaganda? Or has the LGBT group just gone off the deep end in forcing the public to accept something that is abnormal?
Trump has spoken. Men with girls is a nonissue, why are we still discussing this on FR? It's a huge distraction from winning against Hillary.
Most of them could not care a hoot about Little Susie and will just sit down and keep up their masquerades behind the closed door of a stall, but there are always the saddest cases who cannot keep it private.
The 800 ton elephant of fact in the room is that we virtually never policed our bathrooms for anything short of outright molestation and exhibitionism that in turn raised complaints. Our bathrooms have been very libertarian in practice.
This is a trap.
Screw them. Clamp down hard: No means No. As in, no Mr. Pervert, you can’t be in the bathroom with my daughter, or else we hang your ass.
Retreating is not the option here.
States will need to choose what they wish to do and to wrangle out the morality issues without being imposed on one way or another by Uncle Sam. Trump should not be saying whether or not North Carolina should be “paying the big price.” The worth of “paying the big price” is a North Carolina issue.
Tough to do. Health department rules and all that. Besides, even if you could, you'd have to decide which alleys were for whom, and the homeless would get really ticked off.
And just how do you propose this new policing to take place?
We didn’t clamp down hard before some lefty fools made this into an issue of public discourse. Has there been a corresponding surge in such occurrences leading to more molestations, exhibitionism, etc? Or is this mere virtue signaling? Nobody is telling us.
It looks a lot like fig leaf to me. Consider that until recent centuries if not decades, even the kind of indoor plumbing needed to create the modern bathroom didn’t exist, or wasn’t being used for the purpose.
Our society has gone insane as a whole.
There are plenty of sane individuals, but the inmates are running asylum.
Unfortunately, this is not going to be fixed without mass death and destruction.
Are you putting states rights above supporting our nominee?
I think you need to get your head on straight.
So far on the news, all the articles written by men suggest this is not a big deal, and the women need to buck up and get over it and accept it. On the other hand articles written by women say the complete opposite. Many see this as an avenue for predators. Women also take their children into the public bathrooms and believe this needs to be a safe zone. Recently we went to a music event in the San Luis Obispo area and because of this issue, I observed when women went to the restroom they went in pairs or 3 or 4. I said something to my wife about it and she said they go together for protection because there is when a female is most vulnerable. With that she leaned over to another couple we were with, and the two ladies went to the restroom together.
Women are the ones being targeted on the transgender issue. And once again women are being told to accept it, get over it, and move on. As my wife says, women are still being treated as 2nd class citizens and are the ones impacted by this. And its the “Democrat Men” that are ordering them to get over it. It pisses her off. And many of her female friends are pissed off by this. My oldest daughter who is 38 said this is the real war on women. Men once again telling women what to do with no regard for what they want or think
n keeping with contemporary sexual orthodoxy, there seems to be a large, and increasing, number of men who want to go into the ladies’ room to shake their wicks at Little Susie.
Chester the Molester is the new mascot of the Democrat Party.
But he has traded in his raincoat for a dress.
You're right; it's all relative these days.
The de facto, if not de jure, rule has long been that if you were not otherwise bothering people, nobody cared what toilet you chose. Mothers would bring their little boys into the women’s room to go, so they could supervise them, BEHIND CLOSED STALL DOORS. Not “Johnny, take a look at Mrs. Smith’s je ne sais quoi.”
When this matter comes up for public discussion, immediately we think of the flaming drag queen or exhibitionist, the diametric opposite of discretion. And not without reason — matters that were kept under discretion never did gather this much public attention. The circumstances seem to scream drag queen or exhibitionist, and people are responding on this basis.
And yet, I wonder what is really going to happen. Will a place like Target become inundated with drag queens in its rest rooms? Dunno. I’d think it out of character for them.
I’m torn. I don’t want to see this become a big battle, but maybe the lefties won’t permit it to be anything but one. In which case I want to see the reaction be wise. I just can’t see policing people’s pants. Signs in bathrooms warning about exhibitionism and molestation (alongside of the commonly seen ones warning about shoplifting) might appear.
The sentiment is mutual: I think you need to get your head on straight.
Note that women may also (1) bring little Johnny into the women’s room; or (2) accompany little Johnny into a stall of the men’s room. (They probably won’t take him to a urinal though. That’s for Dad to do.)
But this is an astute observation... and it ought to go back in Hillary’s face. Talk about wars on women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.