While businesses and corporations across the state and country are speaking out against House Bill 2, one group is notably silent. The North Carolina Chamber apparently cut a deal with the General Assembly. It seems they agreed to stay silent as long as the legislature prevented local governments from implementing a minimum wage and employees were prevented from suing for discrimination. That’s Big Government conservatism at work.
If so, then the Chamber was literally willing to put profits before people. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. Instead, the bill is costing businesses across North Carolina money. According to the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau, the bill has cost Wake County alone more $3 million and the toll is rising. That’s bad for business.
The North Carolina Chamber is an outlier. In South Carolina, the Chamber announced that it would oppose bills that discriminate against the LGBT community and went so far as to say they would spend money campaigning against the Republican who introduced the bill. Local Chambers like those of Charlotte, Asheville, Durham, and Chapel Hill have all come out in opposition. So has Duke University.
Historically, the business community here has taken the lead in keeping North Carolina a state of moderation. In the 1990s, North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, which later change its name to the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, worked to create early childhood education programs and were among the staunchest supporters of UNC system. They believed in investing in people because the long-term payoff in an educated workforce was not just good for the people but good for the businesses they represented.
Those days are apparently gone. The North Carolina Chamber today seems to have bought into the dying coalition of social conservatives and free market ideologues that allows for intolerance and discrimination in exchange for low taxes, less regulation, and a frayed social safety net. At a time when they could be most useful, they’re sitting silently on the sidelines while businesses across the state suffer from their ill-considered deal.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Ebrun,
Here is what little ol’ Pittsboro said about HB 2 on April 11th:
REPEAL OF HOUSE BILL #2
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016, the North Carolina General Assembly passed and Governor Pat McCrory signed into law, House Bill #2, which adversely affects municipal governance; and
WHEREAS, HB #2 severely limits or eliminates the rights of citizens to bring civil actions for a claim of discrimination in employment or public accommodations; and
WHEREAS, HB #2 pre-empts the rights of local governments from offering these protections to their residents; and
WHEREAS, HB #2 pre-empts the rights of local government from regulating places of public accommodation, reserving such regulatory authority for state government; and
WHEREAS, HB #2 prohibits local governments from providing protection against discrimination in employment practices and related conditions as part of local contracts with vendors; and
WHEREAS, HB #2 prohibits local governments from establishing a local minimum wage for private-sector employers; and
WHEREAS, the Pittsboro Town Board of Commissioners agrees with the North Carolina League of Municipalities’ that “Placing limits on local decision-making authority ultimately is a limit on the political power of local residents”; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Pittsboro is a community dedicated to the principles of equality, nondiscrimination, and full inclusion and engagement by any resident, visitor or guest in the civil rights, benefits, and privileges of all citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Pittsboro is a municipal corporation of the State of North Carolina enabled and entrusted by the General Statutes of North Carolina to preside over the health, safety and welfare of its residents, and local control over its own affairs should not be superseded by the General Assembly;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION I .The Pittsboro Town Board of Commissioners reaffirms its support for protecting and advancing its citizens’ rights and political power and urge the repeal of House Bill #2, otherwise known as Session Law #2016-3, this the 11th day of April, 2016.
SECTION 2. The Pittsboro Town Board of Commissioners asks the Town Clerk to send copies of this resolution to Governor Pat McCrory, Speaker Tim Moore, President Pro Tern Phil Berger, and members of the Chatham County delegation to the General Assembly.
Well, if the Pittsboro Town Board feels that way, the NCGA no doubt will take their views under advisement. So good luck with that.
As I read the comments, I am flabbergasted at Ebrun’s contention that the 4th Circuit is “liberal.” Were it only so! Among attorneys, the 4th Circ. is considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the USA, if not THE absolute most conservative.
I have never argued with Ebrun before, believing that arguing with trolls is fruitless. But, this contention was so astounding, I just had to comment.
Have you seen the latest make-up of the 4th Circuit. Yes, it use to be one of the most conservative appeals courts, but no longer. As a result of Obama’s appointments, the court is now comprised of 10 Democrat appointees and seven Republican appointees. In the VIrginia 2 to 1 majority opinion in the LGBT appeal, the two in the majority are Obama appointees. The dissenting judge was appointed by George Bush. Seems pretty obvious the 4th Circuit now swings heavily to the left.
The Chatham County Board of Commissioners passed this resolution on Monday night. The vote was 4-1. The dissenting vote was from the lone Republican on the board.
Chatham County Board of Commissioners
Resolution Urging NC Legislature to Rescind HB 2 on Behalf of All Its Residents
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2016, the Charlotte City Council approved a local ordinance adding marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to its categories protected from discrimination in city contracting and public accommodations; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016, in response to the Charlotte ordinance, the North Carolina General Assembly in special session ratified, and Governor Pat McCrory signed, House Bill 2 (Session Law 2016-3), which has once again eroded local decision making and also eroded the rights of specific residents who may be victims of discrimination; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 2 has the effect of not only repealing the Charlotte ordinance, it prevents all North Carolina local governments from taking action to ensure that residents are not discriminated against due to sexual identity in terms of public employment, use of public facilities and public contracting; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 2 creates a statewide definition of discrimination in employment and public accommodations that specifically excludes sexual identify as a protected class and provides specific statewide requirements for public bathrooms and changing facilities, including schools, that we deem to be discriminatory; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 2 erodes longstanding state non-discrimination laws by eliminating the right of any person to bring a civil action in a North Carolina court for a claim of discrimination in employment or public accommodations on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, or biological sex (as well as handicap for employment only); and
WHEREAS, House Bill 2 has subjected the state to nationwide negative publicity and has already had tragic economic impact on jobs and tourism revenue, including the loss of at least 1,300 new jobs and millions of dollars in business investments; a decision by Google Ventures not to back any North Carolina companies; the loss of several conventions representing at least 20,000 hotel nights; cancellations of major sellout concerts; and the loss of several film industry projects; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly expended an estimated $42,000 to hold an urgent special session to enact House Bill 2, when funds are greatly needed to address serious issues, such as the 18% poverty rate (including 25% of children and 27% of African Americans), expansion of the Medicaid program and access to high-quality health care for all, adequate funding for public education, including historically black colleges and universities, environmental protection and climate change, and enhanced job opportunities and fair and living wages for all workers; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 2 further sets a negative precedent by restricting local governments’ ability to determine minimum wages paid by private contractors, hours of labor, benefits, well-being of employed minors and other employment issues; and
WHEREAS, we believe that House Bill 2 is not based on factual criminal data and lacks an authentic understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; and
WHEREAS, Chatham County is a diverse community dedicated to the principles of equality, nondiscrimination, and full inclusion and engagement by any resident in the civil rights, benefits, and privileges of all residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
• The Chatham County Board of Commissioners urges the North Carolina General Assembly to repeal House Bill 2 at the earliest opportunity; and
• The Chatham County Board of Commissioners reaffirms its support for protecting and advancing the constitutional rights and equitable treatment of all residents and its opposition to discrimination, prejudice, homophobia, and transphobia; and
• The Chatham County Board of Commissioners applauds the members of the Charlotte City Council for their leadership in standing for dignity and equality in North Carolina’s largest city; and
• The Chatham County Board of Commissioners supports the efforts of local governments involved in exploring possible court remedies that would allow localities in North Carolina to adopt appropriate local ordinances to advance the cause of equal protection and nondiscrimination.
Adopted the 18′” day of April 2016.
Signed:
James Crawford, Chairman
Chatham County Board of Commissioners
How does a resolution by the Chatham County Board of Commissioners pertain to the ideological make-up of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals?
There was some doubt in the mind of one of the appellate judges, D.g., who authored a strong dissent. And funny thing, the two 4th Circuit judges who were in the majority were both appointed by Obama. The judge who dissented was appointed by George H.W. Bush.
If you think judges today, both liberals and conservatives, don’t let their partisan and idealogical preferences influence their decisions, then you’re much more naive that I would have thought. But I suspect you really do know better and are just engaging in a little partisan spin
All you do is spout anti Republican partisan rhetoric, D.g. It’s not very stimulating, intellectually. You have made it very clear over and over how much you despise Republicans. Nothing new with that.
Not likely. The insatiable desire of a majority of North Carolinians to show their ignorance by way of who they vote for is greatly underestimated.
The case was reversed only in part. The district court still has to rule, although it seems likely that the liberal 4th Circuit will uphold the LBGT position. But this case still has a long way to go before it becomes established law. The requirements of Title IX in this area will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. Even if LGBTs win, it will only apply to public schools. Charlotte would still not be able to impose its ban on separate gender specific facilities on private businesses.
The lower court was reversed on the most significant point: contra the trial court, the student’s complaint does state a claim, and was wrongly dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The 4th Circuit is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “liberal,” unless you define that as meaning doing something that you disapprove of.
Right now, it is “established law” that controls in the 4th Circuit, which includes NC. You can argue that by its terms, the opinion “only” applies to public schools, but it will put federal funding for those public schools at risk.
Finally, any lawyer reading the 69-page opinion, or even lay people who are familiar with principles of administrative law such as Chevron deference, will recognize that its logic will apply to other federal agencies that control federal funds.
In short, HB2 may well put NC at risk for losing not just federal education funds, but also federal highway funds, and perhaps a lot more.
Be interesting to see if all those draconian predictions materialize. If they do, then NC will forced to amend or repeal HB2. But to suggest the 4the Circuit does not skew liberal is disingenuous at best. Perhaps not as liberal as the 9th Circuit, but much more liberal than, say, the 6th. And wasn’t it the 4th Circuit that initially ruled against NC’s marriage amendment? Seems that with regard to LBGT advocacy, the 4th leans hard left. This issue is bound to come up in other Circuits. Will they all rule the same?
The predictions follow a logical course of action for sanction on the basis of existing case law and the application of the rules contingent on any subsequent refusal to follow the order of any court having jurisdiction.
They are no more draconian than the action of the NCGA that precipitated the necessity of their application should such an eventuality prove necessary.
On that basis alone, the fix is simple. However, this Legislature and Administration has proven time and again that “simple” and “common sense” are words they use, but are loathe to understand.
Yes Troy, I agree with you. The fix is simple. The NCGA should amend that part of the law that requires schools and government entities to maintain gender specific facilities to allow an exception for medically certified special needs individuals.These special needs could be carefully defined in medical terms so that authorities could allow trans genders to use the gender specific facility of there choice under legally defined circumstances.
Seems most liberals assume that the purpose of HB2 was to discriminate against trans genders, when the real purpose was to protect privacy for the vast majority of citizens. Conservatives objected to the Charlotte ordinance because it allows easy access to female-specific facilities by heterosexual male predators. Having an defined exception for certain medical conditions could address the issue of sexual predators access to female bath and locker rooms and at least mitigate the loss of privacy in gender specific facilities.
You’ve regressed back to personal insults again, D.g. Having a substantive discussion with you seems impossible. When it come to being partisan, you’re just incorrigible.
Not quite the fix I had in mind, but I’ll let you have it since I wasn’t specific as to what I thought the fix should be.
But that doesn’t even begin to address the other problems inherent with HB2. The latrine issue is the banner point drawing attention. The other provisions are just as disturbing.
If it’s true, as most of those in the political world opine that all politics are local, then the Legislature should have stayed out of Charlotte’s local ordinance passing. If it was wrong, then those elected officials would be held to task for doing it. If it was bad for business, then Charlotte would suffer. As it is, the entire State is being made to look like we all rank on the intelligence scale between a sage hen and a bowling ball. Berger and Moore could sit back and cackle at the Great State of Mecklenburg should that have come to pass and gloat with glee about how they were ‘right’ in the long run. Not now though.
Yes, I realize that this bill has drawn support from some people. It has drawn more ire and dissent along with nothing positive being said about anything or anyone in North Carolina currently. That kind of reputation around the Nation and the World isn’t good for anyone of any political persuasion.
I didn’t think we’d agree on a “fix’ and I realize other portions of the law are controversial. But I would have hoped that you would have more explicitly stated your objections to my proposed fix, since the law is already on the books and not likely to be totally repealed. Modification by amendment is the only viable course for those who oppose the law.
Consider this for a moment. The specificity and unfamiliarity of medical language. It works…if you’re in the medical profession. Those that may be charged with enforcement however, if such a thing came to pass, would struggle to understand and then apply the provisions of the law so as to conduct themselves properly. I know it’s just a term, but ‘special needs’. In a general sense, these folks aren’t really in need of anything special except a place to ‘go’ where they are comfortable along with everyone else in the area.
To make this entire latrine matter a non-issue, if you had public access latrines, each with walls and a separate entrance/exit door, and sinks just outside the area, that would eliminate this entire issue through engineering. The extra cost would be the additional doors, which may be offset by not buying the stall walls and doors currently in use. There would be no need for gender specific areas that way.
Oh I know it’s not going to be repealed. I have doubts about amendment having just watched Phil Berger making a statement that he didn’t, “…think it was necessary.”
Companies and other actors are already defying the tenets of the bill now by doing precisely what the bill prohibits as far as allowing gender identity access. I think that will perhaps be the trend. There is no enforcement provision and unlike the other provisions contained therein, has little merit since it can’t be enforced.
It does send a message though. A message that we, as good and decent people, don’t want to be associated with.
Troy, you are misstating the provisions and the purpose of HB2. Companies aren’t “defying the tenants of the bill.” A basic tenant of the bill was to allow private companies and businesses to decide how they want to operate their own facilities without government, state or local, interference. That’s exactly what HB2 was designed to accomplish—no government mandates on private companies on how they operate their bathroom/locker room/dressing room facilities.
With regard to special medical needs, this is not an uncommon practice. Drivers’ Licenses can list certain medical restrictions. People subject to seizures carry medical information explaining their condition. Folks allergic to bee stings sometimes carry medical information to that effect. Trans gender persons have certain medical conditions that can be and usually are diagnosed by the appropriate medical professionals.
To be fair to myself, I didn’t really state any of the provisions of HB2. I merely pointed out that companies are doing what they want irrespective of what HB2 prohibits. Yes, it prohibits local governments from passing ordinances affecting private enterprise. Yes, it dictates who will adhere to the dicta provided for in HB2, and takes great pains to exempt private enterprise from any of those things. So if we may, my phrasing in that paragraph wasn’t the most stellar.
What I don’t like about HB2 is, that it appears to violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Which is why I think the authors took great pains in the opening paragraphs to reference the State Constitution and the General Statutes of North Carolina.
I don’t like the fact that it appears to likewise violate the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Granted the Governor turned that around (sort of) with his executive order, but as we discussed previously, that does not carry the same weight as the statute. Yes, a court may take judicial notice of that order, but that notice is only valid within the confines of the court giving notice. If it’s a trial court, that’s really limited, if it’s an appellate court, then his order may be workable to an extent, but only where it concerns State employees.
The reason I object so vehemently is that those restrictions don’t just touch LGBT people, they touch every citizen of this State and everyone who may cross its border coming in or passing through.
Yes, NCDMV does put restrictions on licenses. But driving is and has been long regulated and recognized universally as a privilege and not a right. But even if DMV takes away your privilege, you have the right of due process to appeal that decision and even have a court hear your appeal in due course. To ensure that there has been no arbitrary or subjective action on the part of Government.
Yes, I realize on its face, HB2 concerned itself with ‘privacy’ and if that didn’t work, ‘safety’, and just to cover all of the relevant fears of those different from the mainstream, ‘the children.’ But consider this. You have no enumerated right to privacy. You have an implied right to privacy, but only as far as you take steps to protect your right to it yourself.
I just saw on the news where the United Kingdom has warned it’s citizens traveling to the US of the laws in North Carolina and Mississippi. I know that Berger and Moore and the majority in the Legislature are going to dig their heels in just to prove a point that public opinion can’t sway them from the ‘truth’ as they know it.
The down side to that is, they aren’t having to pay the price for their conviction. Their reckoning won’t come until they are up for election again. In the interim however, how much will North Carolina and it’s citizens lose?
Ok, that’s a fair analysis. I don’t really agree, but its a rational opinion that is worthy of consideration and debate. I don’t really have a lot to argue with you on most of your most points, although I really don’t think a “warning” from the United Kingdom will have much impact on NC tourism.
Forgetting the legal ramifications for the moment that will ultimately be decided one way or the other depending on a court majority of liberal or conservatives judges, the real impacts you suggest involve, from my perspective, principle versus expediency. Yes, I think the over reaction by liberal interests groups and politicians is creating economic problems for the state, the extent to which is yet to be determined. But I also agree with the Governor that this is a common sense policy that is not discriminatory against any particular group.
So the real issue, in my view, is should the state back down from a logical policy in the face of irrational opposition to avoid the adverse effects of that opposition. I can see a legitimate argument that the state should back off to appease economic interests. But since I won’t personally feel any of the adverse economic consequences, I am able to support standing on principle. Thus, I hope the NCGA stands firm but perhaps adopts my suggestion codifying an exception for special needs access for individuals with certified medical conditions.
Oh I don’t think will have any real impact either. But it is out there and is another tick mark in the ‘negative’ opinion column.
Oversight. We need to keep oversight on both sides of the aisle. We need to be aware and talk about what we don’t like as well as what we do like that Government does. It is after all, being done in our name. All of us. Right, left, centrist, gay, straight; it doesn’t matter. On that basis alone, the freedom to choose. To be as we wish to be, no matter how archaic or bizarre, and that government can’t discriminate against anyone on that basis.
I was watching a talk show last night and a point was made that resonated clearly with me. I’ll share it. “If you’re dressed like a woman, use the women’s bathroom. If you’re dressed like a man, use the men’s bathroom. You have a full beard and moustache wearing a dress, go home.” That to me is common sense. You can’t have it both ways pick one; if you can’t, go home. And no government intercedence required.
I had a better response written yesterday and got an error message when I tried to post and just let it go until today. This is abbreviated, but relevant.
Anything that causes Ebrun heartburn is considered liberal regardless of fact, value or makeup.
I had to dig out my “Rules of Federal Civil Procedure” book, but it was worth the dig to add it to this post.
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
What a shocker! The Chatham County Democrat Party opposes HB2 and wants it repealed. I am sure their are no partisan motives behind their opposition. LOL
Maybe they could get the Chatham County Republican Party to join them in their call for repeal of HB2. Then we could be assured that there is bipartisan sentiment for repeal, at least in Chatham County.
D.g., you think you know more that the General Assembly, their staffs and their legal advisors. If I were you, I’d submit my resume to them right away. I am sure they would find your superior knowledge about the legislative process extremely valuable. LOL
At this point I think my 12 year old is more politically astute than a large portion of the NCGA’s membership.
You are such a hypocrite, Ebrun. You’re on this site all over every thread, accusing everyone else of being partisan, when in fact YOU are a partisan yourself. The Chatham County DemocratIC Party gets to decide what it does or doesn’t support, just as the Republican Parties in the counties do. What, you don’t think county Republican parties are partisan?? Give me a break. Are you really in favor of the NCGA debating an issue for less than a day, after members had only 5 minutes to read the bill? HB 2 was forced through quickly before anyone had time to research it and its ramifications.
Just about everyone who comments here is partisan, Mooser, the vast majority on this blog partisan Democarts. I never denied being partisan, but I do think it’s intolerant for Democrats and other liberals to become irate or indignant when exposed to a different political opinion.
And to trumpet a resolution by the Chatham County Democrat Party as a significant political development is nothing more than crass hyperbole. It would only be newsworthy if the local Republican Party joined the local Democrats in a bipartisan resolution opposing the law.
Oh, Ebrun! “but I do think it’s intolerant for Democrats and other liberals to become irate or indignant when exposed to a different political opinion.”
We disagree with you, and you disagree with us. No one is trying to force you to not share your opinions. We’re just pointing out that much of what you say is bullshit. “Tolerance” doesn’t mean that you have to agree with everyone! By that metric, you are intolerant yourself of the liberal views espoused on here.
I didn’t say tolerant means everyone has to agree. Tolerant to me means being respectful and engaging in civil debate or discussion. It doesn’t mean calling opinions you don’t like “bullshit,” or hurling personal insults at those who’s opinions you don’t agree with.
The Chatham County Commissioners, the Town of Pittsboro and the Chatham County Democratic Party have all passed resolutions opposing HB 2.
Here is the resolution from the Chatham County Democratic Party:
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2016, the Charlotte City Council approved a local
ordinance that adds marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to its list of categories protected from discrimination in city contracting and public accommodations; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016, in response to the Charlotte ordinance, the North Carolina General Assembly in special session ratified, and Governor Pat McCrory signed, House Bill 2 (Session Law 2016-3), the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 2 repeals the Charlotte ordinance by establishing new statewide standards for what constitutes discriminatory practice in employment and public accommodations; and by establishing new statewide requirements for bathrooms and changing facilities in all public agencies, including schools; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly expended an estimated $42,000 to hold an urgent special session to enact House Bill 2, meanwhile neglecting to act with urgency to address real challenges facing the people of North Carolina: the state’s 18% poverty rate (including 25% of children and 27% of African Americans); expansion of theMedicaid program and access to high-quality health care for all; funding for public education, including historically black colleges and universities; protection of the natural environment; mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of global climate change; and job opportunities and fair and living wages for all workers; and
WHEREAS, omission of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and other categories from the statewide list of categories protected from discrimination means that not only do protections on these bases appear to be unavailable under state law, but further, that local governments appear to be preempted from offering these protections to their residents; and
WHEREAS, Governor McCrory’s subsequent executive order only reinstates the rights of state government employees to North Carolina court remedies for discrimination, HB2 still bars the great majority of North Carolina workers access to state courts for discrimination claims after such access has been in place for decades, and keeps some LGBT discrimination in place; and
WHEREAS, by enacting House Bill 2, our state’s political leaders have once again taken extreme measures to attempt to diminish the legislative authority of local governments, and have once again used the laws of the State of North Carolina to codify discrimination and division rather than to advance the rights and dignity of North Carolinians; and
WHEREAS, Chatham County is a diverse community dedicated to the principles of equality, nondiscrimination, and full inclusion and engagement by any resident in the civil rights, benefits, and privileges of all residents;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
SECTION 1. The Chatham County Democratic Party respectfully requests that the Chatham County Board of Commissioners reaffirms its support for protecting and advancing the constitutional rights and equitable treatment of all residents and its opposition to discrimination, prejudice, homophobia, and transphobia.
SECTION 2. The Chatham County Democratic Party respectfully requests that the Board of Commissioners applauds the people of Charlotte and the members of the Charlotte City Council for their leadership in standing for dignity and equality in North Carolina’s largest city.
SECTION 3. The Chatham County Democratic Party respectfully requests that the Board of Commissioners urges the North Carolina General Assembly to repeal House Bill 2 at the earliest opportunity.
I am extremely disturbed by the impulse by the NCGOP and these NC businesses to isolate North Carolina in this way. The damage caused by HB2 is extremely costly. I do not understand why smart local business people would stay silent on this.
The growing desire for a Christian theocracy in North Carolina is a major concern.