Explaining The North Carolina LGBT Battle

On April 12, 2016, North Carolina's LGBT community had taken to the streets after North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) announced Executive Order 93.

The state passed an anti-discriminatory law that excluded protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Now, this had left LGBTs the inability to use public restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate.

Even with the executive order, which was meant to explain the situation, everyone was still left confused.

This was what the original House Bill 2 would implement

• Created a mandatory statewide anti-discrimination policy with protections based on  “race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap.” Biological sex is defined as “the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.” It excluded protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• 
  
• Required people to use bathrooms and changing facilities in government buildings and public schools that correspond with their biological sex. Agencies could provide other accommodations, such as single-occupancy bathrooms. This did not affect private businesses, companies or universities.
• 
  
• Banned local governments from requiring private contractors to have anti-discrimination employment policies that include sexual orientation or gender identity, or to impose restrictions such as minimum wage or paid sick leave.
• 
  
• Prohibited private individuals from suing the state over discriminatory firing, according to employment attorneys in the state. Residents can still file federal discrimination lawsuits.

The provisions had arcane definitions that rooted from discrimination.

McCrory received an open letter from 80 corporation CEOs who said:

“We are disappointed in your decision to sign this discriminatory legislation into law. The business community, by and large, has consistently communicated to lawmakers at every level that such laws are bad for our employees and bad for business.

 This is not a direction in which states move when they are seeking to provide successful, thriving hubs for business and economic development. We believe that HB 2 will make it far more challenging for businesses across the state to recruit and retain the nation’s best and brightest workers and attract the most talented students from across the country.”