Let’s Talk Restrooms…Or Not

In his statement, he goes on to say:

I will always fight for my friends and neighbors in Cleveland County and do the best I can to advance our State for the benefit of all North Carolinians. We may not always agree on the best way to advance, but being honest and straight forward is always better than hiding our true intentions for selfish political gain.

Well, isn’t that special, because sneaked into the bill to fix the “bathroom privacy” issue is the stripping away of LGBT rights, and a requirement that no local government can set their own minimum wage…now what does that have to do with restrooms? You won’t get an answer on that one, but I’d guess that was a two-fer added on for the benefit of Art Pope and the other one-percenters that Tim and the other Republicans are beholden to.

Now let’s talk about some the problems this creates for fine citizens in North Carolina, especially those who keep voting for these backwards assed yahoos.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids schools receiving federal funds from discriminating against trans students by prohibiting them from using the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. The new North Carolina law, dubbed HB2, rebukes this federal mandate by forbidding public schools from allowing trans students to use the correct bathroom. So, we’ll let Tim and Pat explain where the $4.5 billion in federal education funding that North Carolina expected to receive in 2016 has gone. Not they have ever been big proponents of people being educated anyways. This might just give them the excuse to shut down public education in North Carolina…something they prefer since statistics show that the less education a person has, the more likely they are to vote Republican (Seriously, it’s a true fact).

Of course a number of activist organization have already announced their intention to sue, and sue they should. I think a new bill that should be passed would require, if the State loses, the Senators, Representatives and Governor who voted for or signed the bill should have to be personally responsible for the State’s legal bills. But, they will, of course, hand the bill to the taxpayers.

HB 2 is not maybe unconstitutional, it is most definitely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dealt with a similar Colorado measure that prevented municipalities from passing gay nondiscrimination ordinances in 1996’s Romer v. Evans (Sound familiar?). The court wrote, 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.

Now our esteemed Constitutional authorities (what, you say, Tim Moore’s a personal injury lawyer…oh, well that’s about as good as a Constitutional Scholar) in Raleigh think they’ll get around that by some semantic sleight of hand. HB2 says municipalities can’t pass nondiscrimination laws that go beyond the statewide standards—which, of course, do not protect people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. So, in effect, no local government can legally protect its LGBT residents. The problem is, HB 2 classifies and targets trans people right on its face. This makes it susceptible to Romer scrutiny.

But if you think Romer doesn’t apply here, there’s the Arlington Heights v. Metropolitcan case. This case laid out a set of tests the court uses to decide whether a law with a disparate impact on minorities was motivated by discriminatory intent. Let’s look at some of those tests:

• 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.)

On top of that, they have essentially restricted the right of the people to petition their government, and that right extends all the way to level of local government. This has consistently failed all court challenges, and will once again.