Thread: Does North Carolina's HB2 law violate our Constitution? A resounding NO!

In short, under the law in question, sexual deviants who believe their sex is not that which appears on their birth certificate, nor have taken surgical and legal steps to change the gender specified on their birth certificate, are not permitted under the law to use a public bathroom designated for a sex contrary to what is stated on their birth certificate. Does this violate our federal Constitution? We are told by our United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch that the law violates federal law. But our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that includes the 14th Amendment which has been asserted is violated by North Carolina’s H.B.2 law. So, let us look at some irrefutable facts, as opposed to Loretta Lynch’s personal views of justice, fairness or reasonableness which she asserts is violated by North Carolina's HB 2 law.

The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


This section of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws.

Now that we have looked at the text of the 14th Amendment, exactly what was the legislative intent of the Amendment? I ask this question because our aim, in this discussion has been summarized as follows by our very own Supreme Court:


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


So, what was the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as stated by one of its ardent supporters?

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

The very notion that the 14th Amendment prohibits distinctions in law based upon sex is an invention of Justice Ginsburg made in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and a court invented test unknown to our founding fathers or the 39th Congress, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But to this day, neither Justice Ginsburg nor any Supreme Court Justice has ever established by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its legislative intent as expressed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment, that its purpose was to forbid distinctions in law based upon sex.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state legislation which makes distinctions in law based upon sex is immediately exposed for the fraud that it is when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg and Loretta Lynch] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination as we are led to believe today, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg and Lynch allege, then why was it necessary for the 15th and 19th Amendments to be added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment __ each of which forbids a new, but specific kind of discrimination?

Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex as Ginsburg and Loretta Lynch allege?

Thumbs up to the State of North Carolina and Gov. McCrory for standing up to Loretta Lynch’s attempted blackmailing. Hopefully other states will join in this suit.


JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

So if someone "identifies" as a German Shepard puppy are they allowed to relieve themselves in our front yards? On the lawns in public parks? On our fire hydrants? At the doggie park?

What the hell next is going to hit the fan? We are headed down a dark, sick road.

It should be up to businesses, if they choose, to put in an "all in one" single bathroom that anyone can use including handicap, transgender, male, female, family, etc. But NOT allow men in women's rest rooms, or women in men's rest rooms.

On this one, I'm not sure what the right answer is in every situation. People who are transgender are different, they have a hard time, they dress, act and behave according to the gender they feel they are or should have been, so I don't mind someone like that using the same bathroom as I do. How would I even know the difference? I acknowledge that if for example a transgender person who thinks they are or should be a woman and dresses and acts like a woman tries to use the men's bathroom, there is a risk that they'll be harmed, there have been many reports about it, which is what raised the whole issue of them using the women's bathroom instead for personal safety.

I also understand the concern that perverts, child molesters and so forth may take advantage of the law to sneak into women's bathrooms to spy on the girls and women. But on this issue, if a pervert or child molester wants to sneak into the women's bathroom, they can do that now, hide in a stall and wait for their prey. I don't see this law changing that risk which is why most people don't let their small children go to the bathroom in a public place by themselves.

On North Carolina State Law, this law was passed to prevent the city of Charlotte from implementing its own ordinance. To me, that is wrong. Cities are municipalities, they are political subdivisions, they have a responsibility for their municipal territory, they have to promote their own jobs, their own sports, their own development, their own everything. Sure, from time to time the state assists in economic development projects, but for the most part cities and counties are on their own. So to me, Charlotte should have the right to pass a bathroom ordinance that works in their community for issues in their community without being shutdown by a state law passed solely for that purpose. The ordinance that passed only applied to businesses. It did not apply to publicly-owned facilities. And from what I can tell, there's no problem in Charlotte over it, so the state legislature should have stayed out of it. Many would say and I would not disagree with them that this is state over-reach. Charlotte is our largest city, a city that competes internationally in sports, and in business, and on a very wide cosmopolitan scale. What works in Charlotte may not work in other areas of North Carolina, and I understand that, but if it works in Charlotte, let it work in Charlotte. If it doesn't work in Charlotte, the Charlotte City Council will respond and modify their ordinance.

Charlotte has lost a lot of business and events because of what the state has done. How that possibly be good for our state of North Carolina? To much of the country, the state law makes our state look backward and bigoted against these people. How is that helpful? It raises up old scars, tears open old wounds, how can that be beneficial?

The primary issue appears to be "little girls going to the bathroom alone". Maybe little girls and little boys should not be going into public bathrooms alone, with or without the Charlotte ordinance.

Originally Posted by Judy

On North Carolina State Law, this law was passed to prevent the city of Charlotte from implementing its own ordinance. To me, that is wrong.

Are you saying you are ok with sanctuary city ordinances?


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Are you saying you are ok with sanctuary city ordinances?


JWK

No, I'm not okay with any rule, law, regulation or ordinance that protects, aids or abets illegal aliens in the United States. Given what we already know, I would consider such rules, laws, regulations or ordinances acts of treason against the citizens of the United States.

Hundreds of Business Leaders Show Support for HB2 & Governor McCrory


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NORTH CAROLINA— While the air waves have been inundated with businesses, large-scale corporations, and film-makers who neither live nor vote in North Carolina, airing their grievances against HB2, their views are not a reflection of the majority of North Carolinians, 70% of whom wanted Charlotte’s ordinance repealed.

The KeepNCsafe.org Coalition releases the following statement, “While business owners in other states have received criticism and have even been forced out of business for standing up for common sense, hundreds (334) of North Carolina business owners have signed on to a letter thanking Governor Pat McCrory and the General Assembly for passing a law affirming the privacy and safety of businesses, women, and children to live and work in accordance with their deeply held beliefs.These businesses support and applaud Governor McCrory for supporting women and children, over being politically correct.”

“North Carolina is consistently one of the top five states in the nation for business and economic growth. Any businesses threatening to not do business in our great state based on dishonest attacks by opponents of women’s and girls’ privacy and safety are only hurting themselves. Thanks to Governor McCrory and the General Assembly’s leadership and immediate action to ensure North Carolinians’ privacy and safety receives maximum protection, North Carolina will continue to flourish. It would be a shame for any companies to miss out on that simply because they believe men should be allowed into locked rooms with girls and women.”

Here is the list of businesses willing to be listed publicly:

• Preferred Planning and Insurance
• Richard and Lisa Baldwin, Baldwin Insurance & Brokerage
• Sallie Caldwell, S & S Cleaning Service, LLC
• Reese Cao, XG Technologies Inc
• Jennifer Champion, Total Life Changes
• Sam Cowles, Main Street Investments, LLC
• Mark & Lora Godwin, Mark Godwin Family Farms Inc.
• David Griffin, Griffin Tile & Marble Inc.
• David & Judith Hale, Lighthouse Electric of Charlotte
• Dusten Harward, D Harward Marketing
• Debra Hasty, Hasty Home Resources
• H. Ralph Henderson, Omnichannel Productions
• Tim Herlihy, Occupational Health Concepts
• Rebekah Hopkins, Beethoven’s Piano Revelers Studio
• Jana Huffstetler, Collision Center of Stanley County
• Gregory Humphrey, Heaven’s Best Carpet Cleaning
• Cheryl Jones, ICI Lamp Company
• Sergey Kholod, Serglandscape Company
• Tony Mazzone, Comfort Security
• Adam and Michelle Mills, Mills Inc.
• Bill Montross, Christian Business Men Connections
• Jesse Newton, Green Branch Construction, Inc.
• Ronald Obie, WCRG
• Justin Reeder, Superior Wash Southeast
• David & Jason Benham, Benham Real Estate Group
• Lila Sanacore, Prayerful Touch Massage
• Doug Schmeuszer, Sunbelt Packaging LLC
• Tim Steele, Thermal Services, Inc.
• Gretchen, Tate, God’s Glamorous Girls
• Lisa Todd, Todd Group
• Keith Vance, Vance Resource llc
• Maria Vari, Strategic Resource Development
• Elizabeth Walker, Oexning Silversmiths, Inc.
• Paul, Weaver, AWPC, Inc
• Michael Wolff, KC Solutions Group
• Charles O’Connor, Advanced Enclosure Consulting
• Richard Gavin, Riverside Millwork
• Angela Smith, Lombardo Swimming Pools
• Shardae White, Personal Catering llc
• Carl Ford, South Rowan Broadcasting Inc.
• Alva Yandle, Melatex, Inc
• Carl Ford, Ford Broadcasting Inc.
• David Snyder, Snyder Packaging, Inc.
• Wesley Dunn, Wesley’s Detail & Tree Service
• Henri McClees, McClees Consulting, Inc.
• AnnaMaria Simeonides, To Your Health Bakery
• Paul Strates, Archangel Michael Orthodox Christian Bookstore
• Kelly Simeonides, Planet Family Inc.
• CarolinaDreamRealEstate.com Inc.
• Jadd Brewer, Water Quality Lab and Operations
• Eileen Dover, Mary Merrie Christmas Shoppe
• Thomas McCain, Carolina Green Landscape Co.
• Ruben Martinez, Maranatha Realty
• Charlotte Christian Chamber
• Ray Harrison, Carolina Carpet and Flooring
• Tom Harcus, Arcas Real Estate Investment LLC
• American Homesmith
• Centurion Construction Co. Inc
• MLG Construction Co.
• System Electric Co.
• Carolina Civilworks Inc.
• Karen McDaniel, Accounting & More
• Kel Grenga, J.K. Grenga & Associates, Inc.
• Hunt Properties, Inc.
• Charles Herring, CCVentures
• Scott Saunders, Praygrounds LLC
• Rob Moser, Sanctuary Center for Counseling
• Nathan Click, Pearl Financing LLC
• Jeff & Leigh Ann Martin, Martin Medical
• Shifley and Associates

Due to vocal threats and bullying from the LGBT community, some business owners feared for the well-being of their business and families. For this reason, some preferred to remain anonymous by name, however, here is a list of timestamped signees with industry indication for those who have signed on, thus far, showing the incredibly large outpouring of support for the passage of HB2 on the North Carolina business community.

If you have not signed up to be a part of this growing list of businesses in support of HB2 and the actions taken by Governor Pat McCrory and the General Assembly, you can still list your name.
Update: As of 10PM – The business support list has grown to 350 Leaders, 2 listings were removed due to errors.

3/31/16 – List Totals 373 Organizations.
4/3/16 – List Totals 385 Organizations
4/8/16 – List Totals 393 Organizations
4/29/16 – List Totals 401 Organizations

http://keepmyncsafe.com/hundreds-bus...ernor-mccrory/

DOJ’s Lawsuit Against North Carolina Is Abuse of Power

Roger Severino / May 09, 2016 / 118 comments


DOJ’s Lawsuit Against North North Carolina has sustained unrelenting and coordinated attacksfrom big business, the entertainment industry, the American Civil Liberties Union, and now the federal government over its commonsense bathroom policies.

Gov. Pat McCrory and the North Carolina Legislature have had enough of this bullying and filed separate lawsuits against the Department of Justice Monday in the reasonable expectation that a federal judge will order the ideologues at the Department of Justice to back off.

The Department of Justice filed its own suit in response hours later. At stake is up to $4.5 billion in federal education funding under a 1972 law known as Title IX, and a sea change in employment relations if the Department of Justice prevails under a 1964 law known as Title VII.

I must say, I’m very disappointed in my former colleagues at the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. They know very well that when Congress banned discrimination “on the basis of sex” in 1964 and 1972, it did not mean “gender identity.”

It disrespects the very notion of the rule of law for them to hold otherwise, but that is exactly what they have done by threatening North Carolina with lawsuits, fines, and revocation of federal funds because they dared to write in law what most people consider simple common sense—that biological men should not be given unfettered access to public bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms set aside for the needs, safety, and privacy of biological women.

But if you thought the latest front in the bathroom wars was limited to North Carolina, you’d be mistaken.

Laws from the 1960s and 70s designed mostly to protect girls and women from rampant sexism and harassment at work and in schools are now being used by the Department of Justice to cow school districts to grant boys the right to undress in the girls’ locker room (and vice versa), all in the name of psychological comfort and acceptance. When President Barack Obama said he still has a pen and a phone this is apparently what he meant.

These developments prove that same-sex marriage was merely the start, not end, of the left’s LGBT agenda. The radical left is using government power to coerce everyone, including children, into pledging allegiance to a radical new gender ideology over and above their right to privacy, safety, and religious freedom.

The people of North Carolina did not pick this fight. It was thrust upon them by the city of Charlotte after it passed an ordinance requiring privatebusinesses and schools to change their bathroom policies to allow men in the women’s bathrooms. Charlotte was the aggressor and North Carolina restored the status quo that let businesses decide their own bathroom policies.

To see how radical the left’s agenda is, consider that North Carolina law allows accommodation of people who identify as transgender with single-occupancy facilities in government facilities, so people who identify as transgender will have more options than those who don’t. But the left and the Department of Justice have rejected this reasonable approach, and insist on nothing less than total victory by total affirmation.

To add to the problems, the definition of gender identity changes about every three months, so the rules we are supposed to live by are constantly moving. Under proposed rules from the Department of Health and Human Services, sex would mean not just male or female, but also “neither, both, or a combination of male and female.”

Indeed, a few months after the federal government forced a neighboring school district to allow boys into the girls’ lockerrooms or lose federal education funds, Chicago Public Schoolsdiscovered that sex is merely “a label a person is assigned at birth” and that the reality lies in one’s internal “psychological knowledge” of their own gender “regardless of the[ir] biological sex.”
This includes “male/man/boy, female/woman/girl, trans/transgender, gender variant, gender nonconforming, agender, gender non-binary, or any combination of these terms.” According to the left and some corporations, there are 60 possible gender identities.

The people of North Carolina should not be blamed for resisting such radical changes when there are real victims on the other side. Students in school districts facing these novel bathroom policieshave spoken out against them and in favor of privacy.

Female victims of sexual abuse have explained that, while they are careful not to associate transgender people with predatory behavior, they cannot deny that seeing any stranger of the opposite sex undressing in intimate settings can be traumatizing and trigger memories of past abuse. Their voices deserve to be heard, too. And we are already seeing allegations of men not even identifying as women taking advantage of laws that have mandated access to locker rooms and bathrooms based on gender identity.

That these laws will be abused are not unfounded fears:

-Virginia, Nov. 17, 2015, a man dressed as a woman arrested for spying into mall bathroom stall.

-California, April 2016, Fullerton man arrested on suspicion of filming people in a Chapman University bathroom.

-Maryland, Feb. 10, 2016, Maryland teacher charged with filming sex videos in school bathroom.

-Ohio, March 22, 2016, teen arrested after videotaping a 13-year-old girl in the bathroom and forwarding the video to other students.

-Iowa, Feb. 16, 2016, University of Iowa Police locate suspect videotaping in women’s shower.

-Pennsylvania, April 21, 2016, Pennsylvania man arrested for taking photos of a 10-year-old girl in a public restroom.

These are a sampling of examples found here and here.

But whatever one thinks about gender identity, safety, and modesty, it is not the Department of Justice’s role to make up the law on this issue simply because it thinks it is lacking. Can we really still speak of it as “law” when one administration’s ideologically driven “guidance” and reinterpretations can potentially lead to overruling duly-enacted state laws?

If the next administration revokes the Department of Justice’s guidance, will the allegedly unlawful behavior instantly become lawful?

Our Constitution was designed to prevent this sort of arbitrary concentration of power and North Carolina was right to push back against the federal government’s unprecedented overreach.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/09/do...ampaign=thf-fb

The American people rejected the introduction of homosexuality as a protected class in our Constitution in 1982 when they specifically rejected the so called "Equal Rights Amendment". One of the very reasons it was rejected was because it would lead to such things as homosexual marriage; require our nation's women to be drafted into the armed services, and various other things which are repugnant to the vast majority of the American People.

And so, our homosexual community went into the courts and found homosexual sympathizers who were and are willing to use their office of public trust to engage in judicial tyranny and do what the people are unwilling to do under Article V of our Constitution, which is the only lawful way to accommodate change for alleged changing times.

The unavoidable truth is, our federal constitution does not forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex __ an exception being the 19th Amendment which declares the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

We need to start removing judges and Justices, and public servants like Loretta Lynch from their office of public trust who are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and its legislative intent. And they must be punished, with no punishment left off the table!

JWK




"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Gov. McCrory is right on his support of HB2, just like he was right on HB318.

N.C. GOV. MCCRORY SIGNS E-VERIFY, SANCTUARY CITIES LEGISLATION


UPDATED:

Thu, NOV 12th2015 @ 3:05 pm EST

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory has signed HB 318, which expands on the state's existing mandatory E-Verify law and forbids local jurisdictions from passing sanctuary policies. The state legislature took action on the bill after several high-profile crimes occurred in sanctuary cities over the summer.

"We are a nation of laws," Gov. McCrory said just before signing the bill into law. "No politician should choose which laws to obey and which laws not to obey, and this includes immigration law."

The Protect North Carolina Workers Act takes action against sanctuary cities by prohibiting any North Carolina jurisdiction from passing an ordinance or establishing a policy that forbids a law enforcement officer from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

The bill also cracks down on IDs, requiring state agencies to only accept IDs issued by government entities. The crackdown specifically targets matricula consular cards that are issued by certain organizations to illegal aliens.

HB 318 also strengthens the state's existing mandatory E-Verify by requiring contractors that enter into agreements with North Carolina cities and counties to run all new hires through the workplace verification system.

For more information, please see the Greensboro News and Record.
state policies

Originally Published: Thu, Oct 29th 2015 @ 3:03pm EDT

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/nc-g...es-legislation

Showing some backbone in the Tar Heel State

Wednesday, May 11, 2016
| Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)



A family advocate says more Americans need to fight the Obama administration and use North Carolina's governor as a role model.

Andrea Lafferty, who heads theTraditional Values Coalition, is applauding North Carolina for not allowing the federal government to bully the state into allowing men to use women's facilities.

Scalia's absence opened door for NC lawsuit Chad Groening (OneNewsNow) Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams believes the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia emboldened the DOJ to pursue a federal lawsuit against North Carolina's bathroom law. Adams, now chief counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, believes this issue will ultimately reach the Supreme Court which, because of Scalia's passing, is short one conservative justice right now. Adams "The reason this case got filed is because Justice Scalia died [in February]," Adams tells OneNewsNow. "So I think [U.S. Attorney General] Loretta Lynch and President Obama and all the other radicals at the Justice Department are counting on a Supreme Court that looks very different than the one from last January." Adams categorizes the lawsuit against North Carolina as "part of the fundamental transformation" the president promised before assuming office. "And in this case it's to use federal power to create an imaginary civil right for men dressed as women to go into bathrooms," the attorney continues. "It is not part of the federal law, but that doesn't stop this administration from bringing lawsuits in court based on what they wished the law was rather than what the law really is."

The state is led by Gov. Pat McCrory, who has been vilified by homosexual activists and the media for signing House Bill 2 last month.

House Bill 2 stipulates people must use the public restroom that corresponds with their gender at birth. Yet while that sounds like common sense, lawmakers in North Carolina "created state-sponsored discrimination" against the transgendered in North Carolina, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch claimed in a May 9 press conference.

That press conference came after the U.S. Department of Justice demanded that North Carolina drop its new law - and gave the state a deadline to do so. Instead, McCrory announced the state was suing the DOJ and Lynch went to the microphones to compare the Tar Heel State to Jim Crow.

Contrary to President Barack Obama's view, Lafferty says, accommodating transgendered people is not a civil rights issue.
"Martin Luther King Jr. didn't march on Selma so that grown men and boys could march into girls changing rooms and showers," she observes.

The transgendered are "psychologically unhealthy people who clearly need help," Lafferty says, but not at the expense of the majority of Americans, including women and children in public restrooms.

OneNewsNow has noted that transgenderism was considered a mental illness until 2013, when the American Psychiatric Association dropped the term "gender identity disorder" in favor of "gender dysphoria," because the newer term is less "stigmatizing."

Much like comparing North Carolina to Jim Crow, the U.S. Dept. of Education is using Title IX anti-discrimination legislation to demand that public schools accomodate transgender students or face a federal lawsuit and loss of funds.

Much like North Carolina's governor, a group of parents and students in Illinois are suing the Obama administration over that policy.

The lawsuit argues the federal government has "violated students’ fundamental right to privacy and parents’ constitutional right to instill moral standards and values in their children," The Washington Post reported.

It wasn't the intent of Congress in passing civil rights legislation to make transgender a protected class, Lafferty argues.

"The Obama administration," says Lafferty, "is interpreting this law by regulatory fiat."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/20...tar-heel-state