Madison Park

I see the R's are going to make this a political issue. 

My take.....

#1 Transgenders have most likely already been using the bathroom that matches their attire.    I can't tell who is transgender for the most part.  Even the speakers at the City Council meeting one would not of known they were transgender unless they had not told us/council.     If they have undergone gender reassignment surgery you could not tell anyway, and they would fit better in a women's locker room.    If they have not gone all the way then they need to figure that is an issue of their own making, and need to possible choose / shower elsewhere or home until they make the decision to complete full reassignment.

Putting on a dress does not make one a woman aka #2.

#2  I don't think anyone should be allowed to use the locker rooms etc ....unless they have undergone full gender reassignment. 

That said I have never been in a restroom that does not have stalls.  So it really should not matter if a male or female is in the room.   Some bathrooms would need to install stall doors.

I have also been to plenty of events where females can't wait in line at their designated bathrooms and choose to bust in the mens restrooms even with urinals. I don't ever recall them asking.  They just bust right in.    I will never forget being at the Fox Theatre in ATL and women coming in and not even waiting for a stall.  Literally hoping up on the sink.    NO JOKE!

Anyway this issue is much make to do about NOTHING.     Seems to be making a common sense issue Muddy! 

Ordinance should be clarified to state only those transgendered that have full reassignment  have the options to use locker rooms.  

City and County buildings have already been allowing transgender to choose their bathrooms for several months.   Don't recall hearing there was any issues with it. 

Not sure how those people born with both male and female parts have managed to handle their situations since the beginning of time as to bathrooms and locker rooms. 

Anyway you don't hear of gay people raping and molesting straight people in bathrooms and locker rooms....so not sure what the big Deal is all about anyway.  Neither place is a place for sex.   

Looks like Mr. Bishop is throwing a hissy fit.  

According to reports this afternoon in the Charlotte Observer and the Charlotte Business Journal, the City Attorney says that I am "incorrect" that the language of the ordinance passed by Charlotte City Council on Monday prohibits ALL sex-specific bathrooms and showers.

Really?

As I outlined in my release earlier today, the Council struck the separate section prohibiting discrimination based on "sex" and the bathroom exemption it contained. It then moved "sex" to the general public accommodations nondiscrimination section (which has no bathroom exemption) and added "marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression."

The plain meaning of the word "sex" as it now appears is that businesses cannot maintain sex-specific bathrooms and showers, particularly in light of the legislative history of deleting a bathroom exemption.

The City Attorney attempts to argue that "numerous states and cities have non-discrimination statutes and ordinances that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sex without explicitly stating that separate sex facilities are permitted. We are aware of no state or city that has interpreted their laws in the manner suggested by Rep. Bishop."

He also says, "It was not the city's intent to eliminate gender-specific facilities."

Under the law, the city's intent is determined from the language, not anyone's subjective thoughts. My release linked to the 2014 decision from the Maine Supreme Court recognizing exactly this problem in the draftsmanship of that state's public accommodations statute.

So now, here are links to SIX separate state statutes that prohibit public accommodations discrimination based on sex and include a bathroom exemption for that classification: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Tennessee. And these are what I could locate in less than an hour.

Instead of just reporting the story like a ping-pong match, I wonder if some reporter will ask the City Attorney why he thinks all of those states included bathroom exemptions in their statutes if they were unnecessary.

Make no mistake – gender-specific bathrooms at Charlotte businesses are now illegal under the new ordinance. This was a blunder, plain and simple.

Sincerely,

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-Mecklenburg)
State House District 104
Candidate for NC Senate

A candidate for NC Senate, Dan Bishop currently serves as the elected representative for District 104 of the North Carolina General Assembly. For more information about Dan Bishop's background and key policy goals, visit VoteDanBishop.com. To email the campaign, email Alerts@VoteDanBishop.com. This communication was paid for by Dan Bishop for Senate. 

The above is another e-mail I received this evening from Mr. Bishop