North Carolina Lawmakers to Hold Special Session on Controversial Charlotte ‘Restroom’ Ordinance

RestroomRALEIGH, North Carolina — Lawmakers in North Carolina have announced plans to hold a special session in light of concerns over the recently-passed “bathroom bill” in Charlotte, which permits residents to use the restroom and locker room that correlates with their “gender identity.”

As previously reported, despite hours of testimony largely in opposition of the proposal, the Charlotte City Council voted 7-4 last month to expand the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to add provisions for homosexuals and those who identify as the opposite sex.

Council members Al Austin, John Autry, Patsy Kinsey, Julie Eiselt, James Mitchell, LaWana Mayfield and Mayor Pro Tem Lyles voted in favor of the ordinance, while council members Ed Driggs, Claire Fallon, Greg Phipps, and Kenny Smith voted against the measure.

In light of the passing of the controversial ordinance, House Speaker Tim Moore vowed to overturn the law, which is set to take effect on April 1.

“The Charlotte City Council has gone against all common sense and has created a major public safety issue by opening all bathrooms and changing rooms to the general public,” he told the Charlotte Observer. “This ordinance is impossible to regulate as intended, and creates undue regulatory burdens on private businesses. I join my conservative colleagues and Gov. McCrory in exploring legislative intervention.”

The North Carolina Family Policy Council says that the problem goes beyond restroom usage.

“Similar ordinances have been used to force small business owners like florists, bakers, photographers and bed and breakfast owners and others to either conform to a government-dictated viewpoint in violation of those sincerely held religious beliefs or to face legal charges, fines and other penalties that have ultimately caused some to go out of business,” President John Rustin told WCNC-TV.

  • Connect with Christian News

On Monday, following a rally at the state house, Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger announced that they had obtained the necessary three-fifths majority in the General Assembly to move forward with a special session on the matter.

“In accordance with the state Constitution, we will so call for a special session,” Moore and Lt. Gov. Dan Forest said in a statement. “We aim to repeal this ordinance before it goes into effect to provide for the privacy and protection of the women and children of our state.”

Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts has condemned the move.

“Special session is a waste of taxpayer money,” she Tweeted following the announcement. “The assembly should focus on teacher pay, not taking away rights.”

Gov. Pat McCrory has expressed support for legislative intervention.  The special session is expected to be held on Wednesday.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Nedd Kareiva

    While I generally frown on legislative bodies usurping the roles of lower ones, there is more than ample justification for the state (i.e. legislature) to do so on this one. The city of Charlotte and possibly the state are at risk of legal liability if a sexual crime occurs as a result of this absurd ordinance. This is simply about placating the homosexual and transsexual communities and the American Communist Lawyers Union and forcing perversion upon the city and state. Fortunately, the voters wisely saw fit to discard Democrats from public office the last 4 years and give the GOP a majority in the legislature for the 1st time since the 1800s. Had this not occurred, the citizens of Charlotte who oppose this bizarre nonsense would have no say so in its repeal effort. Good work on the part of Speaker Moore & Sen. Berger, “git R done”!

    • gizmo23

      Hopefully all conservatives will fail

      • Nedd Kareiva

        Weak comment, is that the best you can do?

        • gizmo23

          That’s all I need

    • Balerion

      As if laws stipulating which restroom one is required to use have EVER stopped a would-be predator.

  • Semp

    Know who is enjoying this? The attention-loving LGBTQ brats, they’re loving it that lawmakers are talking about THEM, and that must mean they are important.

    Your tax dollars at work, friends – your elected officials, getting paid by you to discuss men who want to go into the women’s restroom. Sick world.

  • Josey

    It needs to be overturned, it won’t hurt transgenders, homosexuals in any way to use a bathroom with the gender God gave them but if isn’t overturned it could harm children and women, thank God for Moore and the others who have common sense!
    Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts who has condemned the move claiming it’s a waste of taxpayers money, this I say to her, it is a waste of taxpayer money to require restrooms be open to anyone claiming a different gender than what God assigned to them at birth and children are worth protecting from harm, how can you put a price on that? You don’t care about the risks involved with children or women, that’s obvious by your statement and do tell what right has been taken from transgenders or homosexuals? They still have bathrooms available to them.

    • kirby76

      Okay, but how far does your principle of “the gender God gave them” go? Does this mean that one’s sex assigned at birth should determine what facilities you use no matter what’s happened since then?

      To understand my point more clearly,do a Google Image search for (a) Caroline Cossey, and (b) Ben Melzer, and tell me if you really think (a) should be using the men’s room and you’d be comfortable with (b) in a restroom with your little daughter.

      • Jalapeno

        Yes, sometimes I wonder if they hadn’t stopped to consider that they would be forcing people who identify, and often pass, as male into the women’s bathroom..

    • gogo0

      “it won’t hurt transgenders, homosexuals in any way to use a bathroom with the gender God gave them”
      so then its fine for a little girl to see a genetically-female adult with a penis in the girl’s restroom? a genetic-male with large breasts sitting to pee in the men’s room?

      • Balerion

        Just waiting for someone to chime in that they shouldn’t get to use either and that they should have thought about that before they chose to “defile” the body that god gave them, as if one’s gender identity was actually any more of a “choice” than one’s physical gender.

        Because what all this right wing screeching about this is, is nothing more than a campaign to dehumanize a certain segment of the population.

    • Balerion

      So then what’s to stop a man from claiming that he was actually born female so he can use the women’s restroom for some sick, perverted purpose? Are they going to check his parts?

  • Paige Turner


    That is all.

  • SSGT_Randolph

    A $42,000-a-day special session.

  • bowie1

    If “transgenders” are embarrassed to go into their own birth gender bathroom perhaps they can use a stall to ensure their privacy.

  • Craig Martin

    a 5 year old has to deal with a man in the rest room with her, or a man
    has to deal with other men in the rest room with him…
    I think we should let the 5 year old off the hook and require the man to deal with his own choices.