San Francisco Mayor Bans Government Travel to North Carolina Over ‘Discriminatory’ Law

bathroom-signs-1310208-640x480-compressedSAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — The mayor of San Francisco has banned all non-essential government travel to North Carolina after legislators voted to overturn a controversial “bathroom bill” in Charlotte.

“Effective immediately, I am directing City departments under my authority to bar any publicly-funded City employee travel to the State of North Carolina that is not absolutely essential to public health and safety,” Mayor Ed Lee said in a statement on Friday.

“I believe strongly that we should be adding more protections to prevent discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities in the United States, not taking them away,” he said.

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—including in regard to restroom and locker room use.

Over 21,000 area residents had signed a petition in opposition of the proposed expansion, and pastors, community leaders and others part of a coalition opposed to the changes known as “Don’t Do It Charlotte” also rallied outside prior to the meeting.

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 rejected the measure.

Gov. Pat McCrory had warned that legislative action would ensue if the council passed the ordinance, and just as stated, House Speaker Tim Moore moved to overturn the law following its approval.

  • Connect with Christian News

On Wednesday, following three hours of debate, the North Carolina House voted 84-25 in favor of a bill invalidating the Charlotte ordinance, with votes cast mostly along party lines—with the exception of 11 Democrats who supported the effort.

The bill, known as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, then passed the Senate 32-0 after Democrats walked out in protest as they believed that they were being left out of the participation process.

“Public agencies shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex,” the legislation reads in part. “Local boards of education shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that is designated for student use to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex.”

McCrory promptly signed the bill into law on the same day.

“The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte,” McCrory said in a statement. “As a result, I have signed legislation passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and etiquette which was to go into effect April 1.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • bowie1

    How often would they do business with a state near the other side of the USA? I assume that means official business and not employees visiting relatives I hope!

    • acontraryview

      “publicly-funded”. Visiting relatives would not fall under that category.

      • bowie1

        Hopefully. Some people have been fired over what they did or said in their private life in other cases.

        • acontraryview

          Well certainly an employer maintains the right to decide if an employee’s behavior that becomes known is consistent with the company’s image and the message it sends. I tell my employees that their private behavior, if it becomes known, reflects on the company.

          With that said, I am unaware of anyone who has faced any penalty for visiting relatives who live in a state in which the legislators have decided that it is a good idea to legalize discrimination.

    • Brad F

      Their relatives probably have no desire for them to visit. Think of all the viruses they would bring with them.

    • They also don’t allow town officials to visit Somalia, I’ll bet (except for health and safety reasons).

  • No loss to NC.

  • acontraryview

    ““As a result, I have signed legislation passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and etiquette which was to go into effect April 1.””

    I guess he chose to leave out the rest of the description of what the bill does. A more complete explanation would have included: “and enshrines in law the right of businesses to turn away customers who are gay, refuse to employ a person because they are gay, fire a person from a job because they are gay, and refuse housing to people who are gay”.

    Legalized discrimination. Sad.

    • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

      No, it’s not. It is similar to companies having the legal right to not employ ex-felons n banks having the legal right to refuse loans to ex-bankrupts or loan defaulters. Homosexuals r an abomination to most society.

      • acontraryview

        It is not like either of those things. In your first example, a person has committed a criminal act that may have bearing on their fitness for a job. In your second example, a person has shown that they may not have been responsible regarding paying back loans. Merely being gay does not make someone a credit risk nor does it make them unable to perform the functions of a job.

        “Homosexuals r an abomination to most society.”


        • WesTexan


          1 Corinthians 6:9–10. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

          • acontraryview

            First of all, Wes, because you have chosen to believe that the Bible is representative of God’s views, does not mean that it is.

            Second, my question dealt with the issue of “to most society” and the basis for suggesting that most of society views homosexuals as an abomination.

            Third, the bible verse you quoted did not originally include “homosexuals” and it does not speak to the issue of homosexuals being an abomination.

          • WesTexan

            And God remains the answer to the first, second and third.

            Unfortunately, your knowledge of the God’s Word is flawed for two reasons:

            1 Corinthians 2:14. “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for
            they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they
            are spiritually appraised.”

            Actually, the Greek speaks directly to the issue of homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is translated from two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

            When you are looking into God’s Word, you are beginning at a disadvantage. It first speaks to the spirit — the Spirit of God joined to the human spirit.

            1 Corinthians 6:17. “He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”

            No matter how intelligent or clever you may be, God’s Word cannot be “spiritually appraised” by an unregenerated human. Even a born-again Christian can be easily led into immoral and evil thinking and living if his or her heart and mind are not completely consecrated to Jesus Christ.

            On the other hand, Romans 8:1 says, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Because of His life within us, we who have our living and being in His presence, live with love, hope and confidence.

          • acontraryview

            “Unfortunately, your knowledge of the God’s Word”

            Again, Wes, your choosing to believe the Bible is the definitive word of God does not make it so. Using quotes from the Bible to prove the Bible is true is like using quotes from Harry Potter to prove that magic is real.

          • WesTexan

            Again, you do not understand because you depend on your flesh to believe there is no God; your spirit has never been reborn. You’re opinion is as relevant as saying steak has no flavor because you can’t hear it. You’re using the wrong organ. You remain dead in your sins although you do not have to remain in that condition.

            My choosing to believe that the Bible is the Word of God is based, not on a choice, but on my experience of God. God speaks to me in two ways: through the written word (the Bible) but also through His instant speaking within me — His Spirit to my spirit. These two will always agree.

            His words are proven out in my life on a daily basis. They’re proven out in the lives of the many Christians with whom I fellowship and pray. God’s words are proven to me through answered prayer. God’s words are proven to me when we agree together and watch God heal the sick or dying. When we give ourselves to help others, God’s response to us is real and substantial. God’s words are proven to me by my relationship with and experience of Jesus Christ for over 60 years.

            You’re obviously free to express any opinion you choose, but that does not make anything … so.

          • acontraryview

            “Again, you do not understand because you depend on your flesh to believe there is no God”

            I have a strong belief in God. I just do not share your belief in God.

            “My choosing to believe that the Bible is the Word of God is based, not on a choice”

            Your statement is contradictory.

            “You’re obviously free to express any opinion you choose, but that does not make anything … so.”

            Agreed. Which also applies to you.

    • Diaris

      You should organize a candlelight vigil. Drama queens love that sort of thing, emoting in public.

  • The Last Trump

    Isn’t that just like the liberal left.
    Banning everything that they disagree with. How mature.
    Good luck trying to enforce restrictions on the travel choices of your citizenry, Mr. Mayor who despises freedom, diversity and tolerance.

    • acontraryview

      “Banning everything that they disagree with.”

      They are banning travel. They don’t disagree with travel.

      “Good luck trying to enforce restrictions on the travel choices of your citizenry”

      He hasn’t placed any restrictions on where citizens travel. He has placed restrictions on using public funds to travel to NC for non-essential business.

      You would benefit from a more thorough reading of the story.

    • gizmo23

      Read the story

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      They cannot stand it if the truth comes out. They are only “tolerant” toward those who share their views – kind of like a certain political party in 1930’s Germany.

      Now, Trump, repeat after me: “There is no Gaystapo, now everyone stop asking so many questions!”

      300 examples of homofascism:

      http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

      • Quantz

        You know that’s Matt Barber’s website you’re quoting, correct, and that he is crazy?

  • SSGT_Randolph

    I applaud Mayor Lee for standing up to the bullies.

    • Diaris

      You girls sure stick together. Same values, same viruses.

    • The gaystapo: fine upstanding gentlemen bullies.

      • SFBruce

        Name calling and Nazi references are the refuge of those who don’t have the facts on their side.

        • That is true: you may like to use these techniques some time. Nazi references also appropriate for those who adopt the policies and methods of the National Socialist Labor Party of Germany, especially the brownshirts who bullied everyone. Crude and stupid name calling is also appropriate for trolls whose reasoning is no better than children on a playground.

          The original comment skillfully reverses the charge of bullying, and insinuates that it is not the gay activists that are the bullies, but those who resist their ridiculous demands. All its skill in propaganda value cannot make up for what it lacks in truth.

          • SFBruce

            a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
            use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

            The state of North Carolina just passed a law which wipes out anti-discrimination protections for LGBT in the few North Carolina localities which had passed them. That same law also forbids other localities from passing such protections. All LGBT people want is to be considered for jobs, housing, and services provided by public accommodations on the same basis as everyone else: the ability to do the job, the ability to pay the mortgage and the ability to pay for the relevant service or product. But it is now completely legal to further marginalize gay people throughout the entire state. I’d say that activity meets the definition of bullying.

            Personally, I wish SSGT_Randolph had made that case rather than just call NC a bully, but I certainly agree with him in his support of Mayor Lee. Similarly, if you believe it’s in the common interest to marginalize LGBT people, then make that case. But the suggestion that we’re the bullies and that our efforts to achieve equality are in any way the moral equivalent of genocide is both insulting and crazy.

          • If you want the font in the marginal notes to be larger than the font in the text, that is an injustice against the text. When you want it to be larger than the chapter headings, that is an offense against all sense and aesthetic decency. When you want your textual preference to have the force of law, that is the essence of bullying.

          • SSGT_Randolph

            Only a bully would find requesting equal treatment to be a “ridiculous demand.” The essence of bullying.

          • Law is not a request.

          • hytre64

            The already HAD equal treatment. Those with Male Genitalia needed to go to the restroom designed & designated for those with Male Genetalia. Those with Female Genitalia were to go the to restroom designed & designated for those with Female Genitalia. Equal Treatment before the law.

  • robertzaccour

    I don’t think we should have to conform public areas to facilitate people that are gender-challenged.

  • Gena B

    Seriously? Is he going to ban employees from going to Chick Fil A or anything else he disagrees with? Surely he has better things to do with his time. Maybe he has a list he refers back to of all the things that don’t support his own personal beliefs. For him being a mayor has it’s personal benefits.

  • TheBottomline4This