The measure is seen as dealing a blow to the LGBT movement after success with protections in cities across the country. (In the House 11 Democrats voted with the Republicans, and in the Senate every Democrat walked out in protest). Senate Democratic Leader Dan Blue of Raleigh called the session “an affront to democracy” and said his caucus wouldn’t be part of “this hostile takeover of human rights”. “We will not be silent”. Republican leaders at the General Assembly scheduled a one-day session after enough lawmakers requested to reconvene.
Advertisement
Madeline Goss, a transgender software engineer from Raleigh, said that when she was growing up in Hickory, “I was bullied and tortured… and where did that happen?” “I think they will put pressure on the governor”.
The resulting legislation went further. Among other protections, it allowed transgender men and transgender women to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Critics said it was “social engineering” to allow people born as biological males into women’s restrooms. They say the bill will deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people essential protections needed to ensure they can get a hotel room, hail a taxi or dine at a restaurant without fear.
The bill would prohibit any such bathroom flexibility. “The League has and will continue to oppose legislation like this which pre-empts local decision-making and undermines the political power of local residents”.
The Charlotte ordinance had been set to take effect April 1.
The bill would not explicitly say that can continue.
The bill also seeks to take control away from cities and counties when it comes to minimum wage laws. The Charlotte ordinance allowed individuals to elect which bathroom to use. “This special session, where Berger and Moore rammed through hastily-crafted legislation was a farce of public policy”. There is no evidence of a threat like this in places where nondiscrimination bills have been passed.
“Discrimination is wrong. Period”, Cooper said.
North Carolina tourism boards like the city of Asheville are actively promoting to the domestic and global LGBT traveler. “Not only does this hurt North Carolina families, but it hurts our economy as well”.
The North Carolina Senate voted unanimously, 32-0, to pass a bill approved by the House earlier today which bans all cities in the state from enacting LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances. Lt. Gov. Dan Bishop taking credit for drafting the bill.
The ACLU of North Carolina issued an angry statement after the bill passed, calling the bill the “most-extreme anti-LGBT bill in the nation”. It would stop Charlotte’s broader anti-discrimination measure and similar rules approved on a local level in the future.
As previously reported, despite hours of testimony largely in opposition of the proposal, the Charlotte City Council voted 7-4 last month to expand the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to add provisions for homosexuals and those who identify as the opposite sex-including in regard to restroom and locker room use.
Local governments that impose special requirements on companies they do business with are overreaching and making life more hard for corporations in the state, said Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam, R-Wake. “Lawmakers may be intent on rushing this discriminatory legislation through, but we are committed to holding them accountable and advocating for the more than quarter-million LGBT people who call North Carolina home”. Transgender men and women told lawmakers they were the ones left unsafe if such protections were not kept in place.
State Rep. Tricia Cotham, a Matthews Democrat, said legislators shouldn’t be involved. She believes this new legislation will hurt local governments. “This is to advance some political careers and tarnish other political careers”.
The bill moves on to the House.
“We witnessed an affront to democracy”, said Democratic Sen. Warren Daniel, a Republican from Morganton, who voted against the amendment. Remaining Republicans gave the legislation unanimous approval.
Advertisement
Charlotte, he said, had passed its ordinance despite the fact that the state had never given it that authority.
