Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Heels

Heels

Last updated on: March 24, 2016 at 5:30 pm by Fred Clark

Heels 2016-03-24T17:30:53-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pat McCrory really, really wants to look in your pants. And the North Carolina governor’s fascination with inspecting the private parts of private citizens is going to wind up costing residents of his state millions of dollars defending the lawsuits that will inevitably 1) challenge, and 2) overturn the law he just signed, which was hastily drafted and passed by Republicans in the state legislature in a special session yesterday.

Zack Ford summarizes what went down, “How North Carolina Became the Most Anti-LGBT State in Less Than a Day“:

Wednesday was a whirlwind day in North Carolina’s government. The legislature convened a special session, a complicated multi-part bill was introduced, it passed through the House and Senate — both Republican controlled — and Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed it into law. Just like that, North Carolina became the state with the most hostile laws against LGBT people in the country.

Targeting Charlotte for passing its recent LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance, the sweeping legislation preempts municipal nondiscrimination ordinances, essentially making it illegal for cities and counties to extend protections to the LGBT community. Only two other states, Arkansas and Tennessee, have such a law, but North Carolina’s bill goes much further. It also bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender unless they’ve managed to change their birth certificate, and prevents civil suits from being filed in state court even when discrimination is documented by the already-poorly-funded Human Rights Commission. On top of all the anti-LGBT measures, the legislation went further and prohibited cities from mandating any employment compensation (minimum wage, benefits, etc.) beyond what is offered at the state level.

The pretense here is that this is a “bathroom bill.” This is a silly fad being pushed all over the place by anti-LGBT dead-enders frustrated that they’ve been losing legal and moral arguments for decades due to their inability to offer any reason why same-sex partners should be denied the right to marry. Ensuring that LGBT people enjoy the same civil rights as everyone else doesn’t take away those rights from anybody else. It doesn’t change anything else or affect anything else in any way. Some people may not like the idea, and they may not approve of it, but so what? It doesn’t affect them, so they have no basis for opposing it. As New Zealand MP Maurice Williamson put it, legal protections for the civil rights of LGBT people are “fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.”

Enter the “bathroom bills.” This is an almost-but-not-quite-clever attempt to declare that some potential harm has been identified for everyone else. When the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, passed a bill protecting LGBT residents from being denied their basic rights, it included the standard reference to the right to access to “public accommodations.” That’s what anti-discrimination laws do. They say that no segment of the public can be denied access to places that are open to the public. Legislators in North Carolina are familiar with this. For generations, that state denied black residents access to “public accommodations” — restaurants, stores, hospitals, public transportation, public restrooms, parking, sometimes even sidewalks.

Anti-gay conservatives decided to focus on the bathrooms. “Focus” may not be a strong enough word — they’ve decided to fixate on the bathrooms.

North Carolina’s new law would prohibit Michael Hughes, a transgender man, from using a public men’s room, requiring him to use the women’s room because — according to North Carolina Republicans — he’s “really” a woman.

Here’s their not-quite-clever idea: Granting LGBT people the same civil right as everyone else has to the public accommodation of public restrooms means that transgender people can use public bathrooms along with everyone else. And that means that women like Laverne Cox or Caitlyn Jenner or the Wachowski sisters (who, they say, are not “really” women) might be using the women’s room. And thus, in their view, allowing LGBT people the same basic civil rights as everyone else will mean that any man at all would be allowed to wander into any women’s bathroom anywhere and your young daughter won’t be safe unless we overturn all such anti-discrimination laws.

Therefore, if you follow all the illogical leaps of logic here, the only way to protect our young daughters from pervy straight male pedophiles hiding in their elementary school bathrooms is to ensure that it is legal to bar all LGBT people from access to any and all public accommodations, to ensure that it is legal to fire people for being LGBT, and to prohibit them from buying, selling, renting, etc. It’s simple cause-and-effect, you see: Corporate HR must be allowed to ask any job applicant if they’re gay “because we don’t hire that kind of people,” otherwise your daughter is going to be attacked by a man in a trenchcoat hiding in the stall next to hers. If two women dining together in a public restaurant can’t be interrogated about whether or not they’re a couple — and denied service if they say yes — then grown men will start using the girls showers at the local YWCA and there will be nothing anyone can do to stop it.

This is all utter nonsense, of course, and they know this — which is why no one has attempted to make this argument in court, where transparent appeals to transphobia wouldn’t cut it as the basis for a legal argument.

And it won’t cut it, months or maybe only weeks from now, when the state of North Carolina has to go to court to defend its new anti-LGBT “bathroom bill.” The state will lose that fight, most likely in a spectacularly expensive fashion. McCrory and his Republican colleagues in the state legislature know this. They’re not trying to win this fight, only to strike a pose as “fighters.” This is a page from the George Wallace playbook. Everybody remembers Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, vowing to fight against segregation forever. They tend to forget what happened just moments later — Wallace lost, backed down, and walked away as a loser. That was his shtick — pick a losing fight, lose the fight and stick taxpayers with the tab, then posture and strut around as the fighter who “took on the Feds” (i.e., who tried to ignore the Constitution and lost, big time).

That’s what Pat McCrory is doing right now, and the residents of North Carolina will be paying the bill for it for a long time.

Between now and then, McCrory and his fellow Tarheel Republicans are going to have to answer an even more difficult question. They have passed a law declaring that they will police access to public restrooms based on “biological sex.” OK, then, “How is the government of North Carolina supposed to figure out a person’s biological sex?”

Apparently, Gov. McCrory wants to look in your pants. Gov. McCrory wants to look in everyone’s pants.

Or, to use the rhetorical flourish favored by “bathroom-bill” advocates, Gov. McCrory wants to look in your young daughter’s pants and in the pants of every one of her elementary school classmates.

Or maybe Gov. McCreepy just wants everyone in his state to be issued an official Peeing License, which would clearly state every person’s official biological gender designation. North Carolinian’s would be required to carry these licenses at all times and would have to present them, on demand, before entering any public restroom. Because small government conservatism.

McCreepy’s legislative blitz yesterday wasn’t only a bathroom bill, though. That was the pretext — state legislation to override Charlotte’s city law protecting LGBT civil rights. But the effect — explicitly written into this new law — reaches far beyond just this immediate anti-LGBT pretext. The law claims for the state the right to overrule and override any local or municipal regulation — specifically mentioning local minimum-wage laws and child-labor laws.

So this isn’t just about prohibiting Charlotte from protecting the civil rights of LGBT residents. It’s also about preventing Charlotte from raising the minimum wage. Or preventing Charlotte — or any other municipality — from, say, requiring better water-safety standards than whatever state lawmakers might decide. It’s a centralized, top-down, Raleigh-knows-best power-grab by the capital. Because, again, small government conservatism.

Previous Post

March 23, 2016

I search the world over for my angel in black

Next Post

March 25, 2016 Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 74: 'King of Kings and Capo di tutti capi'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the king of Babylon when Daniel was in the lions’ den?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Nebuchadnezzar Darius Belshazzar Cyrus