I, For One, Welcome The #HB2Liars Lawsuit

“Extreme”
“Discriminatory”
“Hateful”
“Cruel”
“Insulting”
“Mean-spirited”

This is how HB2 is described by lawyers and even the POTUS.  All shaming words. Note “illegal” is not one of them.

The moment the North Carolina legislature took action to call a special session to deal with the illegal Charlotte Ordinance, it was obvious our lawsuit happy Lefties in North Carolina would be suing.

And so they have.

Read the suit here.  Main plaintiffs are ACLU and Equality NC.

It’s main thrust is that HB2 removes LGBT protections across the state.

First, what protections were rolled back? The suit doesn’t really define what protections they are claiming have been rolled back.  They’ve made it a broad suit covering all LGBT, when really HB2 is dealing specifically with biological sex.

Second, the suit doesn’t even touch the definitions in HB2 of biological sex, but instead opts to define and legitimize ‘gender identity’.  They also talk about gender dysphoria in points 29 and 30, recognizing this is a mental illness:

Gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition that if left untreated canlead to clinical distress, debilitating depression, and even suicidal thoughts and acts.

Gender dysphoria is a condition recognized in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth ed. (2013)(DSM-V), and by the other leading medical and mental health professional groups,including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association.

And the suit lists the ‘treatment’, which the rest of the population has to be a part of making it the largest group therapy session in history:

Treatment for gender dysphoria includes living one’s life consistent with one’s gender identity, including when accessing single-sex spaces like restrooms and locker rooms.

It will be interesting to see the spin the plaintiffs give to the judge on this, given these are mental illnesses that they are now weaving into their suit.

Point 39 in the suit is, for me, where the crux of their case lies:

For transgender adults, it is critical that social transition include transition in the workplace, including with respect to restrooms. Excluding a transgender man from the restroom that corresponds to his gender identity, or forcing him to use a separate facility from other men, communicates to the entire workplace that he should not be recognized as a man and undermines the social transition process.

What they are basically saying here is that the needs and comfort of an estimated .3% of the U.S. population, who they admit fall under a defined mental illness, come before millions of others.

Care or SueThis isn’t about discrimination, this is about redefinition.

Shorter: You Will Be Made To Care.

The suit is littered with inflammatory language characterizing HB2, while saying very little about the actual illegalities of the Charlotte Ordinance. That’s going to be fun during discovery.

I, for one, welcome this lawsuit.  I am of the opinion that the bill was written so a lawsuit would be forthcoming. This is a good thing.

The way HB 2 is written, it forces any legal challenge to define what sex is. The Left and LGBT groups constantly refer to sex as gender, then further water it down gender as something that can be defined by any given individual — in their own head.

Biological sex, on the other hand is the reality HB2 puts out there as the defining criterion for facilities usage. I think this bill is going to force the courts to define sex.

As I’ve said before HB2 is important as CLT’s ordinance  violated the NC Constitution, would have set precedent for other cities and is vitally important to blocking the U.S. Department of Education from pursuing their Title IX lawsuits against schools.

It’s one thing to come after adults with what basically boils down to a Leftist, social justice warrior agenda item. It’s quite another to come after our children, which is where this thing is ultimately going.

Advertisements

About A.P. Dillon

A.P. Dillon is a Co-Founder and Managing Editor at American Lens. She resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of LadyLiberty1885.com. Her past writing can also be found at IJ review, Breitbart, FOX news, Da Tech Guy Blog, Heartland Institute, Civitas Institute and StopCommonCoreNC.org. Find her on Twitter: @APDillon_
This entry was posted in LadyLiberty1885, Legal Related, LGBT, Liberals Gone Wild, NCGA, Pat McCrory, Social Justice, The Articles, You Will Be Made To Care and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to I, For One, Welcome The #HB2Liars Lawsuit

  1. Pingback: HB2 Lawsuit’s Poster Boy | Lady Liberty 1885

  2. timothypeck says:

    The True ‘Trauma Trigger’ That the North Carolina Bathroom Bill Is Designed to Prevent

    …But here’s the really maddening thing: At the same time that Leftists on college campuses are forcing professors to water down their lessons lest the truth be a “trauma trigger,” they’re blasting a law that exists to protect people from actual trauma triggers. Not fake trauma triggers, like the question “Where are you from?” Real ones, like male genitalia in a girl’s locker room.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433423/north-carolina-house-bill-2-bathroom-bill-common-sense

  3. Cyclops618 says:

    Here’s a question that I have not seen an answer to. HB2 allows any private business or organizations to establish their own policies with regard to the use of their own bathrooms. Local governments cannot require private concerns to allow LGBT individuals to use whatever restroom they choose, but a private concern could establish such a policy.

    What about a CITY or municipal operated bathroom facility? Can, for example, the City of Charlotte establish bathroom use policies for its CITY OWNED and operated facilities that would allow what the now voided Charlotte ordinance would have allowed or required?

    • A.P. Dillon says:

      Are you asking if a town or city can adopt an ordinance like Charlotte’s? No. They can’t.
      Can towns or cities set up a unisex facilities situation? Yes, they can.
      HB2 allows private business to operate has they wish, free of such an imposition like the Charlotte ordinance.

      • Cyclops618 says:

        Ok, clear answer, This is where I mildly disagree with one approach taken in HB2. The strength of HB2 is that it is elective, not coercive with regard to businesses and privately- owned facilities. Neither a city nor the state can dictate their bathroom policies.

        I would favor letting the local government decide how it will operate its OWN facilities, but not dictate to private concerns what they must do. I doubt few cities and towns would follow Charlotte’s example with regard to LGBT provisions. Those that do, like Charlotte, would hopefully suffer blowback from the voters like what happened in Houston.

        I know this position is inconsistent with my support of HB2’s mandate that public school systems maintain separate facilities based on biological gender. My only rationale for this requirement is that the state funds the bulk of local school systems budgets, but probably little of municipalities’ budgets.

      • A.P. Dillon says:

        Cities and municipalities derive their authority and rule making from the state.

  4. timothypeck says:

    “I am of the opinion that the bill was written so a lawsuit would be forthcoming.”

    It certainly anticipated it: Severability Clause in HB2. Part IV, Section 4.

Comments are closed.