The Terrible Danger of Mistaking Perception for Reality (Part 1)
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
Publicly Heated Controversy
As controversial as it may be, I have to agree with North Carolina's House Bill 2 (HB2); and similar legislation taking place in other states across America. In my view, this bill is not designed to discriminate against transgender citizens, but to protect the privacy of all citizens and their decency when using a public restroom or changing facility.
Just because the Supreme Court approved same sex marriage, doesn't automatically mean the LGBTQummunity has the right to suddenly start imposing their agenda to further validate their lifestyle by leveraging the court's decision to change the rules and 'redefine' everything.for their appeasement.
Regarding it's content about employment and other public accommodations, again in my opinion it is not discriminatory. It merely reiterates the limited protection of all workers regardless of "race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees." And like most states, this applies to all states where employment is "at will."
If you are employed at will, your employer does not need a just cause to fire you. You can be dismissed by an employer for any reason or for no reason; and without warning. But "at will" employment also means that you, as an employee, can quit at any time for any reason or for no reason, without advanced notice.
So the same thing applies to me and you, not just the LGBTQummunity. I'm an African-American and over 50, and I know I've been a victim of employment discrimination due to my race and age. But unless I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I have no legal recourse, and there's nothing I can do about it. Employers know how to do what they do, and get away with it.
In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial "probationary period" from being fired without cause), employers are free to adopt at will employment policies, and the remainder of them have.
While it is not very lengthy, click the link below the image to read the full context of the bill in its entirety. However, given the backlash that ensued from opponents, on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 just twenty days after signing House Bill 2 into law, Gov. Pat McCrory announced in a press conference, he has signed an executive order that amends that decision and expands the state’s employment policy to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
Since then Gov. Pat McCrory Issues an Executive Order on HB2
What Does Executive Order 93 Entail?
According to North Carolina News WNCN.com, the governor said Executive Order 93:
- Maintains gender-specific restroom and locker room facilities in government buildings and schools
- Affirms the private sector can establish its own restroom and locker room policies
- Affirms the private sector and local governments’ right to establish their own non-discrimination employment policies for its own employees
- Expands the state’s employment policy cover sexual orientation and gender identity for state employees
- Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination
But let's get back to the focus of this article, which is the 'bathroom' matter of the bill.
EVERY male has XY chromosomes. EVERY female has XX chromosomes. Even if you change the reproductive parts through surgery and hormone drugs, you CANNOT change the chromosomes. Even a hermaphrodite, who has both or neither female or male genitalia will have either XX or XY chromosomes to determine it's sex.— Tom Wallace
What Bathroom Should I Use? That is the Question...
So it stands to genetic reasoning that a girl or a woman should use the ladies room, and a boy or a man should use the men's room.
But now that same-sex marriage has been approved nationally, suddenly the LGBTQummunity wants to claim discrimination if a transgender person identifies as a man, although genetically she's a woman by virtue of her XX chromosomes, to use a male restroom and changing facility.
Likewise, if the 'guy' in the picture above, wearing a wig with a beard, identifies as a female he should have the right to walk into a women's restroom and say, "Excuse me ladies, I really need to go badly;" and no one should have a problem with it, even if he just shocks a 5 year old girl with such a grossly non-female appearance?
But the LGBTQummunity's quest to impose ALL restrooms and changing facilities to be gender-neutral, doesn't have anything to do with how much one 'appears' to be of the opposite sex, it's solely about how one 'identifies' with the opposite sex.
In other words, a perfectly straight looking male should be able to use a women's bathroom, because he 'identifies' as a woman, and a beautifully stunning, straight looking, jaw-dropping female should have every right to walk into the men's locker room, just because she 'identifies' as a man.
[What] Gov. McCrory [did] is irrelevant to Roy Cooper and his left-wing political correctness mob with their agenda-driven allies in the liberal media, who will never stop trashing North Carolina until they achieve their goal of allowing any man into any women’s bathroom or locker room at any time simply by claiming to feel like a woman.— NC Senate leader Phil Berger
Chad Sevearance: Convicted Sexual Predator is a 'LGBT Activist' Behind NC Failed Measure For Gender-Neutral Bathrooms
According to the DailyWire.com, "using the nonsense term “LGBT activist”, The Charlotte Observer said Chad Sevearance - president of the “LGBT-founded” Charlotte Business Guild - was a lead agitator behind the failed measure. A convicted child molester, Sevearance wants criminal penalties imposed on businesses that discriminate against homosexual or transgender persons for any reason."
Additionally, there was a recent case at the University of Toronto where they decided to start cutting back on gender-neutral bathrooms after two residents of Whitney Hall became the victims of voyeurism.
Personally, I have two daughters and I would be livid if either of them became a victim of any form of sexual harassment or assault as a result of the LGBTQummunity pushing their agenda on schools, universities, restaurants, and every locker room or public restroom they can think of. It's inappropriate and it puts women and young girls and boys at unnecessary risks.
According to their website, "Lambda Legal is the oldest [founded in 1973] and largest national legal organization whose mission is to achieve full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work."
Under their FAQ section one question asks:
Q: What if someone doesn't look masculine or feminine enough to use a particular restroom?
A: "There is no rule that a person must look a certain way to use a certain restroom. This kind of “gender policing” is harmful to everyone, whether a transgender person, a butch woman, an effeminate man or anyone dressed or groomed in a way that doesn’t conform to someone else’s gender standards."
Notice how they conveniently and totally ignored adding to their list, the potential ramifications and risks on young women or under-aged heterosexual boys and girls, when they said this "kind of 'gender policing' is harmful to everyone," as they list only those in their LGBQummunity at the exclusion of everyone else.
Are you kidding me? So if we are to understand this reasoning, we can defy logic and let anyone, at anytime use whatever restroom they "feel like" at the time they "feel like" a man or a woman. Can you image, after a drinking binge, a group of heterosexual male college students decide to go use the female restroom in their dorm on a Friday night?
Why not, as long as they do not commit a crime, so what if they're a convicted sex offender. They can claim a sudden overwhelming 'feeling' of being a woman; regardless to whether such feeling has been innate or some how spontaneous, and no matter if female students 'felt' uncomfortable about the situation.
After all, it's ALL about appeasing and making the biblically abhorrent lifestyle of the LGBTQummunity 'feel' socially acceptable, at the expense of decency, common sense and the safety and comfort of everyone else; right?
The same could apply to a female seeing a "jock" at a high school athletic center, and when he goes to the men's locker room, she decides to join him due to a similar urge of suddenly "feeling" like a man.
I trust my point about the abuse of such policies can reasonably occur, has been made. Even without criminal activity necessarily taking place or malice intent, it can still be shocking and perceived as abuse by, and at the detriment of the victims facing the circumstances at the time.
This terrible saga continues with more unbelievable shocking developments...