North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Vicious, Shameful, and Unconstitutional

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:50 am

On Wednesday night, in the course of just a few hours, North Carolina became the most anti-LGBTQ state in the country.

In a special session called for exactly this purpose—and which cost taxpayers $42,000 a day—the legislature passed a stunningly vicious, completely unprecedented bill stripping LGBTQ North Carolinians of their rights. The measure revokes local gay and trans nondiscrimination ordinances throughout the state, effectively legalizing anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and forbids trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. That includes trans public school students, many of whom will now, in effect, be barred from using the bathroom at school. Shortly after the legislature passed the bill—over the objections of every Senate Democrat, all of whom walked out of the chamber in protest—Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law. Explaining that he was eager to nullify Charlotte’s new LGBT nondiscrimination measure, McCrory wrote, “The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte.”

McCrory should know something about government overreach. The gallingly cruel bill he just signed doesn’t just transgress basic norms of decency and morality. It also violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

As interpreted by the Department of Education, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids discrimination against trans students in any school that receives federal funding. These schools are prohibited from excluding trans students from the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. The new North Carolina law, dubbed H2, rebukes this federal mandate by forbidding public schools from allowing trans students to use the correct bathroom. That jeopardizes the more than $4.5 billion in federal education funding that North Carolina expected to receive in 2016. Without that money, many schools in the state—from kindergarten through college—will be unable to function. McCrory should prepare to explain to North Carolina parents why their children’s access to education is less important than degrading and demeaning trans students on account of their identity.

HB 2 is also unconstitutional—not maybe unconstitutional, or unconstitutional-before-the-right-judge, but in total contravention of established Supreme Court precedent. In fact, the court dealt with a very similar law in 1996’s Romer v. Evans, when it invalidated a Colorado measure that forbade municipalities from passing gay nondiscrimination ordinances. As the court explained in Romer, the Equal Protection Clause forbids a state from “singl[ing] out a certain class of citizens” and “impos[ing] a special disability upon those persons alone.” Such a law is “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” and under the 14th Amendment, “animosity” toward a “politically unpopular group” is not a “proper legislative end.” Just like the law invalidated in Romer, HB 2 “identifies persons by a single trait”—gay or trans identity—“and then denies them protection across the board.” The Equal Protection Clause cannot tolerate this “bare desire to harm” minorities.

HB 2 classifies and targets trans people on its face, rendering its anti-trans provisions immediately susceptible to Romer scrutiny. (Legislators justified this assault by claiming that trans nondiscrimination laws permit sexual predators to attack women in bathrooms, but this is pure and proven fiction, which cannot pass even lenient judicial review.) The law’s attack on gays and bisexuals, however, is slightly subtler. Instead of naming sexual minorities, the law bars municipalities from passing nondiscrimination laws that extend beyond the statewide standards—which, of course, do not forbid sexual orientation (or gender identity) discrimination. So, in practice, no city can legally protect its LGBT residents.

This artful workaround cannot save the rest of the bill. Under Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan, courts must attempt to glean whether a law with a disparate impact on minorities was motivated by discriminatory intent. To do so, courts examine several factors—all of which align chillingly with HB 2. For example, does the challenged law disproportionately affect one minority? (Yes.) Does the “historical background” reveal “a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes”? (Yes—the stated purpose of the law was to overturn Charlotte’s LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance.) Do the events leading up to the law depart from normal decision-making procedures? (Yes; the legislature rammed the law through in record time with minimal discussion.) Does the legislative history reveal governmental animus? (Absolutely: From the start, Republican legislators have vocally supported HB 2 as an effort to disadvantage LGBT people.)

And even if a court were somehow not convinced that HB 2 runs afoul of Arlington Heights, another, even more venerable precedent controls: 1967’s Reitman v. Mulkey, whose continued vitality the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed. In Mulkey, the court confronted a purportedly neutral California law that prohibited any legislative interference with property owners’ right to refuse to sell or rent their property for any reason. The court rightly noted that even though the law did not explicitly mention discrimination, its “immediate design and intent” was to establish a “right to privately discriminate” in a manner that directly harmed minorities. Thus, the law’s efforts to leave discrimination as its subtext could not save it from crashing into the shoals of the Equal Protection Clause.

HB 2 is Mulkey redux. Actually, it is Mulkey combined with Arlington Heights, cast through the lens of Romer, refracted through the prism of Obergefell v. Hodges. In short, it is blatantly and brazenly unconstitutional, an appalling attempt to humiliate LGBT people, exclude them from the political process, and impose special burdens on their everyday lives. It cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, and it barely even pretends to be motivated by anything more than a desire to harm politically unpopular minorities. Such legislation is an affront to the Equal Protection Clause and to America’s constitutional tradition. One hundred and twenty years ago, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that our Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” On Wednesday, North Carolina created a new class, a lesser class, among its citizens. It is now up to the courts to remind the state of Harlan’s other admonition: “In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/03/24/north_carolina_s_anti_lgbtq_law_is_unconstitutional.html

by Original Quill Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:12 pm

RWers are inevitably 1) anti-people, somewhere, in some way; and 2) looking backward.

In this case they want a second bite at the apple. They are just setting themselves up for a beating.

by nicko Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:19 pm

If all left wingers are like you Quill the world is fucked!

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:23 pm

Use the bloody disabled toilet!!!

by Original Quill Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:28 pm

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:35 pm

It's seems a bit of a fuss over which toilet to use.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:46 pm

I think the rights of normal people are important (EDITED.....NOT ACCEPTABLE)

Tommy...I canned Stromee for the same.....

watch it
LF

by HoratioTarr Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I think the rights of normal people are important(NOT ACCEPTABLE.)

Define 'normal'. How about seeing all people, no matter their sexual orientation as human beings.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:56 pm

I don't know why any man would want to use the ladies' loo in a nightclub - the queues are always massive!

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:08 pm

Oooh, more red ink. Laughing

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:10 pm

yep thats another perk of being a mod....a barrel of red ink.....

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:10 pm

The question is - if a woman went to the loo and found a man in there, what would she think? If he was dressed as a woman I think she'd assume that he was transgender and not be bothered, but do all transgender men dress as women?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:21 pm

I didn't quite understand this tweet. Is this chap with a beard actually a woman?

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/25/11305188/north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-law

by Original Quill Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know why any man would want to use the ladies' loo in a nightclub - the queues are always massive!

The new law requires that the person use the rest room of the gender on his or her birth certificate. Sometimes that's waaay off. As one very masculine transgender said, "Can you imagine the screams in the ladies room when they find me in there?"

If it wasn't so bigoted, I'd find it quite comical. Gonna give the police headaches.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know why any man would want to use the ladies' loo in a nightclub - the queues are always massive!

The new law requires that the person use the rest room of the gender on his or her birth certificate. As one very masculine transgender said, "Can you imagine the screams in the ladies room when they find me in there?"

If it wasn't so bigoted, I'd find it quite comical. Gonna give the police headaches.

I understand what the new law is saying. What I'm saying is that a chap who wants to be a woman would be mad to want to use the ladies in a nightclub.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I think the rights of normal people are important (EDITED.....NOT ACCEPTABLE)

Tommy...I canned Stromee for the same.....

watch it
LF

Explain yourself!

What exactly did I say that was against the law or against the rules of this forum...!?

I used perfectly acceptable and regular English language.

What is wrong with what I said!?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:39 pm

This abbreviation is getting longer and longer. I had to google to find out what the Q stood for. Apparently, you can have two Qs as well - the second one meaning "questioning".

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I think the rights of normal people are important (EDITED.....NOT ACCEPTABLE)

Tommy...I canned Stromee for the same.....

watch it
LF

Explain yourself!

What exactly did I say that was against the law or against the rules of this forum...!?

I used perfectly acceptable and regular English language.

you also promulgated a bigoted lie....transgender people are NOT sexual deviants (and dont try playing the smart arse with words and shades of meanings....you are quite explicit about your views...

What is wrong with what I said!?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:08 pm

Isn't this about ... er ... perverts pretending to be transgender though, and going into ladies' bathrooms?

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:42 pm

nothing about that in the O/P ?

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:43 pm

Quite right tags. .. which is included in what I was getting at...

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:54 pm

Lord Foul wrote:nothing about that in the O/P ?

I did further research.

by Cass Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:04 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I think the rights of normal people are important(NOT ACCEPTABLE.)

Define 'normal'. How about seeing all people, no matter their sexual orientation as human beings.

It really is that simple. Thank you.

by Victorismyhero Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Quite right tags. .. which is included in what I was getting at...

yeah ...sure...

why didnt you post that then tommy.???

If you gas SAID that hetero perverts are claiming to be transgendered to gain access to the ladies .....that would be a different story wouldnt it...

in other words that WASNT what you meant at all

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:12 pm

Is this really discrimination though? After all, they're just saying the men should use the men's room, and women should use the women's room, rather than people choosing which one they want to use. It's the same for everyone.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Is this really discrimination though? After all, they're just saying the men should use the men's room, and women should use the women's room, rather than people choosing which one they want to use. It's the same for everyone.

So let me get this correct.
You want to tell people what gender identity they are and not themselves?
You also back discriminating against them based on their gender identity?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:21 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Is this really discrimination though? After all, they're just saying the men should use the men's room, and women should use the women's room, rather than people choosing which one they want to use. It's the same for everyone.

So let me get this correct.
You want to tell people what gender identity they are and not themselves?
You also back discriminating against them based on their gender identity?

I'm saying that they are not discriminating on the basis of gender. If anyone could just go into any toilet they wanted, there would be no point having separate ones for each gender.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

So let me get this correct.
You want to tell people what gender identity they are and not themselves?
You also back discriminating against them based on their gender identity?

I'm saying that they are not discriminating on the basis of gender. If anyone could just go into any toilet they wanted, there would be no point having separate ones for each gender.

Yes they are fundamentally discriminating against them on gender
Its not about going where they want to but where they feel comfortable due to their gender identity

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:30 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm saying that they are not discriminating on the basis of gender. If anyone could just go into any toilet they wanted, there would be no point having separate ones for each gender.

Yes they are fundamentally discriminating against them on gender
Its not about going where they want to but where they feel comfortable due to their gender identity

They're not discriminating against them on gender. I would think that a lot of people feel uncomfortable in public toilets anyway. Perhaps they should divide them not on gender, but by those who make a mess and those who don't.

If I was in a public toilet on my own, I would be a bit alarmed if a man came in. If there were other people there, it wouldn't really bother me. If the said man was dressed as a woman, it probably wouldn't bother me, but what if he wasn't?

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes they are fundamentally discriminating against them on gender
Its not about going where they want to but where they feel comfortable due to their gender identity

They're not discriminating against them on gender. I would think that a lot of people feel uncomfortable in public toilets anyway. Perhaps they should divide them not on gender, but by those who make a mess and those who don't.

If I was in a public toilet on my own, I would be a bit alarmed if a man came in. If there were other people there, it wouldn't really bother me. If the said man was dressed as a woman, it probably wouldn't bother me, but what if he wasn't?

Again they are discriminating based on gender because they are fundamentally not recognizing their gender, which you are also doing.
So again they have no right to decide and is basically saying to them what their gender is, when its not.
That is what you fail to grasp

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:33 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not discriminating against them on gender. I would think that a lot of people feel uncomfortable in public toilets anyway. Perhaps they should divide them not on gender, but by those who make a mess and those who don't.

If I was in a public toilet on my own, I would be a bit alarmed if a man came in. If there were other people there, it wouldn't really bother me. If the said man was dressed as a woman, it probably wouldn't bother me, but what if he wasn't?

Again they are discriminating based on gender because they are fundamentally not recognizing their gender, which you are also doing.
So again they have no right to decide and is basically saying to them what their gender is, when its not.
That is what you fail to grasp

No - a man is a man, even if he wants to be a woman, and vice versa.

So you think that people should generally decide which toilets they want to use - the one with the smallest queue perhaps?

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again they are discriminating based on gender because they are fundamentally not recognizing their gender, which you are also doing.
So again they have no right to decide and is basically saying to them what their gender is, when its not.
That is what you fail to grasp

]No - a man is a man, even if he wants to be a woman, and vice versa.
Wrong
So you think that people should generally decide which toilets they want to use - the one with the smallest queue perhaps?

I think people should be allowed to use what toilet facility based on their gender and its not up to you or any other Transophobe to decide

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:36 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

]No - a man is a man, even if he wants to be a woman, and vice versa.
Wrong
So you think that people should generally decide which toilets they want to use - the one with the smallest queue perhaps?
I think people should be allowed to use what toilet facility based on their gender and its not up to you or any other Transophobe to decide

Well apparently it is up to the North Carolina legislators.

So you think that any man should just be able to go into the women's loos then?

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:
I think people should be allowed to use what toilet facility based on their gender and its not up to you or any other Transophobe to decide

Well apparently it is up to the North Caroline legislators.

So you think that any man should just be able to go into the women's loos then?

Which as seen is unconstitutional and will be challenged and easily beaten for the blatant discrimination

Your second questions shows how little you understand transgender, as you are classifying them yet again to a gender you have no right to decide on.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:39 pm

How do you know which bathroom a transgender person should use?
A: A transgender person should use the restroom that corresponds to his or her gender identity.

The medical community (and increasingly, employ-ers, schools and courts) now recognize that it is essential to the health and well-being of transgender people for them to be able to live in accordance with their internal gender identity in all aspects of life—restroom usage is a necessary part of that experience.

In Doe v. Regional School Unit, the Maine Supreme Court held that a transgender girl had a right to use the women’s bathroom at school because her psychological well-being and educational success depended on her transition. The school, in denying her access, had “treated [her] differently from other students solely because of her status as a transgender girl.” The court determined that this was a form of discrimination.

Right to restrooms that match one’s gender identity have also been recognized in the workplace and are actively being asserted in public accommodations. In Iowa, for example, discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity has been prohibited by law since 2007 through the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:39 pm

Cass wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Define 'normal'. How about seeing all people, no matter their sexual orientation as human beings.

It really is that simple. Thank you.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:39 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well apparently it is up to the North Caroline legislators.

So you think that any man should just be able to go into the women's loos then?

Which as seen is unconstitutional and will be challenged and easily beaten for the blatant discrimination

Your second questions shows how little you understand transgender, as you are classifying them yet again to a gender you have no right to decide on.

I have every right.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Which as seen is unconstitutional and will be challenged and easily beaten for the blatant discrimination

Your second questions shows how little you understand transgender, as you are classifying them yet again to a gender you have no right to decide on.

I have every right.

You have absolutely no right at all to decide their gender or to discriminate against them

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:42 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I have every right.

You have absolutely no right at all to decide their gender or to discriminate against them

I didn't decide their gender - nature did.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

You have absolutely no right at all to decide their gender or to discriminate against them

I didn't decide their gender - nature did.

Really explain the science behind your claim on "nature"?
And then explain this on transgender?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:47 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't decide their gender - nature did.

Really explain the science behind your claim on "nature"?
And then explain this on transgender?

You don't know how the genders are formed?

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:47 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Quite right tags. .. which is included in what I was getting at...

yeah ...sure...

why didnt you post that then tommy.???

If you gas SAID that hetero perverts are claiming to be transgendered to gain access to the ladies .....that would be a different story wouldnt it...

in other words that WASNT what you meant at all

Well why don't you post up what I did ACTUALLY say... and we can all see that firstly, what I did say was perfectly legitimate as a post and should never have been removed at all... and secondly, how it does apply to a whole range of things that the vast majority of normal everyday people should expect to be free from when using a toilet!!!

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Really explain the science behind your claim on "nature"?
And then explain this on transgender?

You don't know how the genders are formed?

So you cannot answer, just as I though

Transgender: Evidence on the biological nature of gender identity

Medical care of transgender patients, including surgical and hormonal treatment, has largely been met with resistance by physicians in favor of psychiatric treatment, owing to misconceptions that gender identity can be changed. According to a review article in Endocrine Practice, there is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender identity that may change physicians' perspective on transgender medicine and improve health care for these patients.

The article was led by researchers at Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM).
Disorders of gender identity affect as many as 1 in 100 people. Transgender individuals are those who identify with a gender that differs from their natal sex. Different etiologies have been suggested as the cause of transgender identify however none have been proven definitively. The researchers conducted a literature search and reviewed articles that showed positive biologic bases for gender identity. These included disorders of sexual development, such as penile agenesis, neuroanatomical differences, such as grey and white matter studies, and steroid hormone genetics, such as genes associated with sex hormone receptors. They conclude that current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity. "This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the scientific evidence that gender identity is a biological phenomenon," explains corresponding author Joshua D. Safer, MD, FACP. "As such it provides one of the most convincing arguments to date for all medical providers to gain the transgender medicine skills necessary to provide good care for these individuals," he added. According to the researchers the article does have some limitations due to the small numbers of individuals studied and therefore conclusions should be drawn with caution. Safer recommends that further research focus on specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity.

Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Boston University Medical Center. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:50 pm

We're not talking about people who have physically changed their gender though.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:51 pm

Anyway, if a bloke is attracted to other blokes, but he thinks of himself as a women, is he gay or not?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:52 pm

Also this new law isn't really anything to do with gay people is it? It's to do with transgender people. It's not an "anti-LGBTQ" law.

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:We're not talking about people who have physically changed their gender though.

Which again shows you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Transgender

I suggest you first research something you know very little about before promoting discrimination against people

by Guest Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Also this new law isn't really anything to do with gay people is it? It's to do with transgender people. It's not an "anti-LGBTQ" law.

Again no concept of what you are talking about

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:56 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:We're not talking about people who have physically changed their gender though.

Which again shows you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to Transgender

I suggest you first research something you know very little about before promoting discrimination against people

So you think it just means people who have physically changed their gender?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Also this new law isn't really anything to do with gay people is it? It's to do with transgender people. It's not an "anti-LGBTQ" law.

Again no concept of what you are talking about

Yes I do. A gay man doesn't necessarily want to be a woman, so why would he want to use the women's toilets?

by Sponsored content