#ncga: HB2 FOR DUMMIES (Pay attention, Colin & Binky. THIS will be on the quiz.)
It seems like the drivebys are having a contest to see who can use some form of the words “bigot” and “hate” (i.e., bigoted, hateful, bigot, bigot-a-licious) in the fewest column inches. We’re hearing a roll call of highly important concerts (*Itzhak Perlman, Boo-Hoo*) cancelling their visits to North Carolina, while WRDU seems to be announcing the impending arrival of some new big name band in the state each day.
Trolling the N&O website, it’s really hard to find a post that has nooooooothing to do with GAY STUFF!!!™. With all of the hysteria the drivebys are trying to whip up over this legislation, one HAS to ask: Why don’t they print the details of the bill? ANSWER: It would kill their narrative.
Our local paper is up in arms because they see no “enforcement mechanism” for HB2. What have people BEEN doing to keep boys out of the girls bathroom? This is nothing radical or revolutionary here, people.
So, we’re going to take it upon ourselves to offer the cold, HARD facts on HB2. Here’s the text of the bill AND 
our commentary:
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR SINGLE-SEX MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY BATHROOM AND CHANGING FACILITIES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES AND TO CREATE STATEWIDE CONSISTENCY IN REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.
Whereas, the North Carolina Constitution directs the General Assembly to provide for the organization and government of all cities and counties and to give cities and counties such powers and duties as the General Assembly deems advisable in Section 1 of Article VII of the North Carolina Constitution; and
Whereas, the North Carolina Constitution reflects the importance of statewide laws related to commerce by prohibiting the General Assembly from enacting local acts regulating labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing in Section 24 of Article II of the North Carolina Constitution; and Whereas, the General Assembly finds that laws and obligations consistent statewide for all businesses, organizations, and employers doing business in the State will improve intrastate commerce; and
Whereas, the General Assembly finds that laws and obligations consistent statewide for all businesses, organizations, and employers doing business in the State benefit the businesses, 18 organizations, and employers seeking to do business in the State and attracts new businesses, organizations, and employers to the State;
Okay. There w
e go with the preamble of the bill. It makes clear that the General Assembly — thanks to the state constitution — has the final say on the governance of the state’s localities. It also makes the case of keeping rules, regulations and laws consistent throughout the state to benefit and encourage intrastate commerce. Sounds pretty reasonable. *Feelin’ the hate, yet?*
Okay, let’s keep going:
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART I. SINGLE-SEX MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY BATHROOM AND CHANGINGFACILITIES
SECTION 1.1. G.S. 115C-47 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: “(63) To Establish Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing 28 Facilities. – Local boards of education shall establish single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities as provided in G.S. 115C-521.2.” 30 SECTION 1.2.
Once again, it’s basically clarifying and confirming that we will keep doing what we’ve been doing. Boys go in one room. Girls go in the other. And we’re pretty much dealing with schools, here. MORE: 
Article 37 of Chapter 115C of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: Ҥ 115C-521.2. Single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities.
(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section: (1) Biological sex. – The physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate. (2) Multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility. – A facility designed or designated to be used by more than one person at a time where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other persons. A multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility may include, but is not limited to, a school restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room. (3) Single occupancy bathroom or changing facility. – A facility designed or designated to be used by only one person at a time where students may be in various states of undress. A single occupancy bathroom or changing facility may include, but is not limited to, a single stall restroom designated as unisex or for use based on biological sex.(b) Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. – Local boards of education shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that is designated for student use to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex.
Okay. So, you ARE what (1) your birth certificate and (2) the area between your legs says you are. *The truth hurts, huh?* (Still looking for the hate. So far? A lot of common sense.) MORE: 
(c) Accommodations Permitted. – Nothing in this section shall prohibit local boards of education from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities upon a request due to special circumstances, but in no event shall that accommodation result in the local boards of education allowing a student to use a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated under subsection (b) of this section for a sex other than the student’s biological sex.
Okay. So, school boards — if they wish – can create single occupancy bathrooms or offer “controlled use of faculty facilities” for the kiddies who don’t feel they fit neatly into a category. Boys in the girls locker room is STILL not okay. MORE:
(d) Exceptions. – This section does not apply to persons entering a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated for use by the opposite sex: (1) For custodial purposes. (2) For maintenance or inspection purposes. (3) To render medical assistance. (4) To accompany a student needing assistance when the assisting individual is an employee or authorized volunteer of the local board of education or the student’s parent or authorized caregiver. 15 (5) To receive assistance in using the facility. (6) To accompany a person other than a student needing assistance. (7) That has been temporarily designated for use by that person’s biological sex.”
Okay. So more exceptions here. If you’re cleaning the place, if you’re offering medical attention or helping someone determined to really need assistance, you’re fine to go in the girls bathroom. This pretty well covers all the legitimate reasons for a guy being in the girls restroom or locker room. MORE: 
SECTION 1.3.
Chapter 143 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read:
“Article 81. “Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. “§ 143-760. Single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities.
(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section: (1) Biological sex. – The physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate. (2) Executive branch agency. – Agencies, boards, offices, departments, and institutions of the executive branch, including The University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Community College System. (3) Multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility. – A facility designed or designated to be used by more than one person at a time where persons may be in various states of undress in the presence of other persons. A multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility may include, but is not limited to, a restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room.
(4) Public agency. – Includes any of the following: a. Executive branch agencies. b. All agencies, boards, offices, and departments under the direction and control of a member of the Council of State. c. “Unit” as defined in G.S. 159-7(b)(15). d. “Public authority” as defined in G.S. 159-7(b)(10). e. A local board of education. f. The judicial branch. g. The legislative branch. h. Any other political subdivision of the State.
(5) Single occupancy bathroom or changing facility. – A facility designed or designated to be used by only one person at a time where persons may be in various states of undress. A single occupancy bathroom or changing facility may include, but is not limited to, a single stall restroom designated as unisex or for use based on biological sex.
(b) Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. – Public agencies 50 shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex.
(c) Accommodations Permitted. – Nothing in this section shall prohibit public agencies from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing facilities upon a 54 person’s request due to special circumstances, but in no event shall that accommodation result in 55 the public agency allowing a person to use a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility 56 designated under subsection (b) of this section for a sex other than the person’s biological sex. 57 (d) Exceptions. – This section does not apply to persons entering a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated for use by the opposite sex:
(1) For custodial purposes.
(2) For maintenance or inspection purposes.
(3) To render medical assistance.
(4) To accompany a person needing assistance.
(4a) For a minor under the age of seven who accompanies a person caring for that minor.
(5) That has been temporarily designated for use by that person’s biological sex.”
Again, clarifying any and all legitimate reasons for a man to be in the ladies’ room. MORE:
PART II. STATEWIDE CONSISTENCY IN LAWS RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRACTING
This section keeps, say, Chapel Hill from establishing their own minimum wage ($30 per hour for EVERYBODY!) or employment quotas (ONLY GAY-OWNED BIDDERS ALLOWED). MORE: .
PART III. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS
This section cracks down on frivolous “discrimination” lawsuits and funnels those complaints to the state Human Relations Commission for mediation. (Good. Those folks needed s
omething to do to justify their line item in the budget. MLK Day is only ONE DAY per year.) There is a real press on to equate not hiring someone because they are gay with not hiring someone because they are black or female.
A church or other faith-based workplace should have some protection for their First Amendment rights. There is precedent for gays taking churches to court over employment issues.
Wow. We’re going to keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing for centuries. Girls in one room. Boys in the other. OMG. We can’t have this barbaric stuff. *Call off my booking at DPAC ASAP.*
“We’re going to keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing for centuries. ”
Actually, segregating bathrooms is a very recent adoption. And for centuries it has not been a problem.
Well, some of us do not consider the Roman Empire to be all that ”recent”. And, of course in the Muslim world, segregation between the sexes has been even more extreme from the time of Mohammed through today.
It was not until the 1940’s that we began, with any frequency, having seperate public bathrooms. It used to be that we had seperate bathrooms for black people and white people. It turns out putting them together is NOT a problem.
There are many many buildings older than the 1940s in the US, and abroad, which have had seperate mens and womens restrooms since the time they were built. Now, small buildings with a single person restroom may have been built for all, but multi-stall facilities were not uni-sex. Even among peasants in rural medieval England, the males in a household used one side of the house and the females the other. And, of course, then there are the Romans.
Your “evidence” may be true but those were far from the dominant practice of all sharing the same facilities at those times.
This actually goes back to the late 1800’s as women became more prevalent in the workplace as well as other areas.
Women’s safety and privacy became a concern back then as it does now. It makes even more sense as there are now small cameras and phones that can take pictures that are disseminated around the world. The real issue here is not the tranny who in the past went ahead and did what they wanted wherever they wanted with little to no problem…but with the perverts who are going to film or assault our wives, mothers, daughters, sisters etc. Why this war on women is taking place I will never comprehend.
The REAL issue here is providing Everyone the right to use the Appropriate bathroom. The perverts have always been and will always be the problem in any environment. They will take indecent advanatage of others and should be prosecuted. That has NOTHING more to do with the LGBT community than it does with all of us.
The real issue here is privacy. Someone suffering from the mental illness of ”transgenderism” is still subject to criminal prosecution for peeping tom if he/she/it goes into the wrong restroom. They can and should be prosecuted, convicted, and jailed.
A boy who thinks he is a girl is not a lot different from someone who thinks he is Napolean. They all ought to be in mental health programs to treat those conditions.
So we are back to condeming practically everyone who was born prior to about 1940. I guess even Jesus was a criminal in your book.
You kool aid drinkers get your information from some alternative universe.
I have traveled in some less developed countries where most of the public restrooms in rural areas were latrines, literally a stinking hole in the ground without anything to even sit on, always surrounded by some type of wall. Yet they still always had one for women and a separate one for men.
It seems that America should give our people at least as much privacy as those less developed countries do. We should not let the tail wag the dog with a handful of mentally ill ”transgenders” given preference over the privacy of the overwhelming majority of normal people.
“…surrounded by some type of wall.” We Do have Stalls for the faint of heart.
I do agree it has nothing to do with the trannies JBP, but i guess you fail to see that there is no recourse available when some pervert or pedophile goes into the women’s room to get their jollies. Opening the law up to some nebulous “feeling” just does not work when you apply common sense (I know that is hard for you people).
Currently it is easy to spot that something is amiss if some dude walks into the women’s shower as it is not up to what the dude “feels like” or “identifies as” today.
At the end of the day, this Radical Leftist war on women is the height of ridiculous.
States other than North Carolina seem to have good sense over bathroom and shower room privacy. Another lawsuit has been filed against the Obama regime over its dictatorial policy on this issue, this one by 11 states, led by Texas.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/11-states-sue-obama-administration-over-guidance-t/
Due to recent court action, the liklihood of a referendum by the citizens of California on this issue has greatly increased.
Common decency and common sense will surely prevail over the tiny weird fringe group that demands bathroom and shower room access to the opposite sex’s facilities.
So taking away the ability to bring discrimination suits to the state court (as perHB2) isn’t discriminatory? Next up you’ll be calling for the return of “colored only” drinking fountains and bathrooms. If you’re going to discriminate then go big because you’re sliding down that slope fast.
You do realize polls are showing the majority in NC are against HB2? All of my friends and family (all lifelong Republican voters) are solidly against it and most will NOT be voting for McCrory or our local legislators who voted for HB2. They no longer represent us and they will not be getting our votes.
Our legislature was absolutely correct in protecting our small businesses from lawsuit harassment by homosexual activists. What has happened to Christian florists, bakers, and photographers in other states who refuse to betray their Christian principles should not be allowed to happen in NC
Nor should mere behavior, especially perverted sexual behavior EVER be the basis of a protected class.
Please tell me what is “perverted sexual behavior” between consenting adults, how you came to that conclusion, and what right do you have to tell consenting adults how to show their love for each other. I am sure some things that you do would disgust some people.
First, NO mere behavior, of any sort, perverted or not, should be the basis of a protected class. That is a very slippery slope. So the specific definition of perverted really is not the heart of the situation.
Second, while there will be some differences at where to draw the line, some behaviors have been considered perverted by society throughout history. The far left seems to want to treat anything as normal. The Washington Times recently had an article that the next in line for the left was to make pedophilia the new normal. I guess that fits right in with letting grown men into restrooms and shower rooms with little girls. I guess it is not all that surprising that the individual who let the fight for the Charlotte bathroom ordinance is a convicted child molester.
Thanks John Steed for your common sense posts. You hit the nail on the head. This fervor over HB2 is just a warm-up to push pedophilia, incest and then bestiality. Nothing is sacred to them. It’s all about attacking to weaken our devotion to our loving Creator GOD. Consider this: a woman that will kill her own child will do anything. The left pushed for and got the “right” to kill your own child, then they got porn into every home via the internet, music and television and at every opportunity use those mediums to make Christians look silly. They want us to believe that we really, really do believe it is normal to put men in innocent girl’s private spaces. It’s all the same perverted agenda: sin and evil are “fair” and “just” while purity and righteousness is “nerdy” and “bigoted”. We know who we battle. And we know Who wins in the end.