Gregory F. Murphy, MD, North Carolina Republican Representing District 9 said “I think it was one to either send a symbolic statement or a real statement across the state that this is an expected modicum of behavior for people in bathrooms, bath houses, locker rooms”, meaning the law doesn't have any teeth, meaning North Carolina's conservative leadership just played their constituents for suckers to get out the vote.
ECU professor Carmine Scavo said “The intent of this law was basically symbolic” and “I don’t think at the time that they passed it that they ever thought they were going to have to defend it or enforce it.”
This issue has been manufactured so the conservative base would come out and howl, and succeed as evidenced by this thread among others. The negative ramifications and unintended consequences appear to not have been worth the price, as we are losing jobs, reputation and economic growth from a bogus initiative with blatant discrimination for women, older workers and others who have been harmed by the rest of the bill for a few crony capitalists who run North Carolina.
"...State Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake) was asked a straightforward question by a BBC interviewer last week: "You think it's OK for an employer to say I don't want to hire a gay employee?"
"Yes," said Stam.
Stam was one of the key architects of House Bill 2.
This is what Gov. Pat McCrory is defending: The right of employers in North Carolina to discriminate against gays, lesbians and transgender people, not only in employment but in providing public accommodation.
This is what lies at the heart of HB 2. Not the "bathroom issue." Not "grown men showering in front of little girls," which would have remained illegal under state law. McCrory sticks to those talking points, but he even misrepresents them as he did in today's response to Kathleen Parker where he wrote:
"These North Carolina values of privacy and equality came into conflict when the Charlotte City Council mandated that all local businesses and organizations allow men to use a woman’s restroom, locker room or shower facility."
That's misleading. His statement would lead readers to believe any man could use women's facilities.
The Charlotte ordinance made allowances for transgender people to use the facilities they are comfortable in.
Men showering or using locker rooms in front of little girls
would have remained illegal under state law,
therefore this is a bunch of propagandist garbage spewed by bigots at the state house
funded by folks like Marty Kotis and Roy Carroll
There's a difference."
"Simple here, government has no authority to force an employer,
say a church for example, to hire or fire homosexuals.
"George...I would not hire a practicing homosexual either"